ArticleEuropean journal of clinical microbiology & infectious diseases : official publication of the European Society of Clinical Microbiology2013
Positive urinary antigen tests for Streptococcus pneumoniae in community-acquired pneumonia: a 7-year retrospective evaluation of health care cost and treatment consequences.
Article in European journal of clinical microbiology & infectious diseases : official publication of the European Society of Clinical Microbiology, 2013. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
4 citing papers in PubMed.
- Things We Do for No Reason - OrderingOpen forum infectious diseases · 2024Article
- Urinary Antigen Testing for Respiratory Infections: Current Perspectives on Utility and Limitations.Infection and drug resistance · 2022Review
- Urinary antigen testing for pneumococcal pneumonia: is there evidence to make its use uncommon in clinical practice?ERJ open research · 2020Review
- High variability among Emergency Departments in 3rd-generation cephalosporins and fluoroquinolones use for community-acquired pneumonia.Infection · 2015Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
A positive pneumococcal urinary antigen test (PUAT) for Streptococcus pneumoniae allows an early switch from empiric to targeted treatment in hospitalised community-acquired pneumonia (CAP) patients. The economic and treatment consequences of this widespread implemented test are, however, unknown. We retrospectively evaluated all tests performed since its introduction in two teaching hospitals. Data on patient characteristics, treatment, admission and outcome were retrieved from the electronic patient files. Test benefits were expressed as the number of days that targeted therapy (i.e. penicillin) was administered to hospitalised CAP patients due to a positive PUAT. This calculation was based on the timing of the PUAT and the initiation of targeted therapy. Subsequently, we performed two direct cost analyses from a hospital perspective, first including tests performed for CAP only, and second including costs of all (excessive) tests. Between 2005 and 2012, 3,479 PUATs were performed, of which 1,907 (55 %) were for CAP. A total of 1,638 PUATs (86 %) were negative and 269 (14 %) were positive. Fifty-two (19 %) positive tests were excluded. In 75 (35 %) of the 217 remaining positive tests, a positive PUAT led to targeted treatment during 293 cumulative admission days. Testing costs for CAP only were €131 per targeted treatment day. These costs were €257 if local protocol dictated PUAT use for all CAP cases, as opposed to €72 if the test was reserved for severe cases only. When including all tests, PUAT costs were €254 per targeted treatment day. Therefore, improving the selective use of the PUAT in hospitalised CAP patients may lead to increased (cost-)efficiency.
Indexed as
Identifiers
23111919What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.