Evidence map›Paper›PMID 26245946›Full record

ArticleEuropean journal of clinical microbiology & infectious diseases : official publication of the European Society of Clinical Microbiology2015

Analytic laboratory performance of a point of care urine culture kit for diagnosis and antibiotic susceptibility testing.

E Bongard, N Frimodt-Møller, M Gal, M Wootton, R Howe, N Francis, H Goossens, C C Butler

Abstract readComparative Study
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in European journal of clinical microbiology & infectious diseases : official publication of the European Society of Clinical Microbiology, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 9 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
9citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
1.5field-weighted citation impact, top 18% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

9 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 16 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. A new point-of-care test for the rapid detection of urinary tract infections.European journal of clinical microbiology & infectious diseases : official publication of the European Society of Clinical Microbiology · 2020
    Trial
  3. Point-of-care urine culture for managing urinary tract infection in primary care: a randomised controlled trial of clinical and cost-effectiveness.The British journal of general practice : the journal of the Royal College of General Practitioners · 2018
    Trial
  4. Predicting antibiotic prescription after symptomatic treatment for urinary tract infection: development of a model using data from an RCT in general practice.The British journal of general practice : the journal of the Royal College of General Practitioners · 2016
    Trial
  5. Review
  6. Article
  7. Current and emerging trends in point-of-care urinalysis tests.Expert review of molecular diagnostics · 2020
    Review
  8. Review
  9. Clinical accuracy of point-of-care urine culture in general practice.Scandinavian journal of primary health care · 2017
    Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

8 authors at 5 institutions in 4 countries.

E BongardCardiff University, Cardiff, Wales. bongardej@cf.ac.uk.
N Frimodt-MøllerStatens Serum Institut, Copenhagen, Denmark.
M GalCardiff University, Cardiff, Wales.
M WoottonPublic Health Wales, Cardiff, Wales.
R HowePublic Health Wales, Cardiff, Wales.
N FrancisCardiff University, Cardiff, Wales.
H GoossensUniversity of Antwerp, Antwerpen, Belgium.
C C ButlerCardiff University, Cardiff, Wales.
Cardiff University · GBPublic Health Wales · GBStatens Serum Institut · DKUniversity of Antwerp · BEUniversity of Wales Institute Cardiff · SG

Funding

Medical Research Council
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Currently available point-of-care (POC) diagnostic tests for managing urinary tract infections (UTIs) in general practice are limited by poor performance characteristics, and laboratory culture generally provides results only after a few days. This laboratory evaluation compared the analytic performance of the POC UK Flexicult(™) (Statens Serum Institut) (SSI) urinary kit for quantification, identification and antibiotic susceptibility testing and routine UK National Health Service (NHS) urine processing to an advanced urine culture method. Two hundred urine samples routinely submitted to the Public Health Wales Microbiology Laboratory were divided and: (1) analysed by routine NHS microbiological tests as per local laboratory standard operating procedures, (2) inoculated onto the UK Flexicult(™) SSI urinary kit and (3) spiral plated onto Colorex Orientation UTI medium (E&O Laboratories Ltd). The results were evaluated between the NHS and Flexicult(™ )methods, and discordant results were compared to the spiral plating method. The UK Flexicult(™) SSI urinary kit was compared to routine NHS culture for identification of a pure or predominant uropathogen at ≥ 10(5) cfu/mL, with a positive discordancy rate of 13.5% and a negative discordancy rate of 3%. The sensitivity and specificity were 86.7% [95% confidence interval (CI) 73.8-93.7] and 82.6% (95% CI 75.8-87.7), respectively. The UK Flexicult(™) SSI urinary kit was comparable to routine NHS urine processing in identifying microbiologically positive UTIs in this laboratory evaluation. However, the number of false-positive samples could lead to over-prescribing of antibiotics in clinical practice. The Flexicult(™) SSI kit could be useful as a POC test for UTIs in primary care but further pragmatic evaluations are necessary.

Indexed as

Diagnostic Techniques, UrologicalPoint-of-Care TestingAdolescentAdultAgedAnti-Bacterial AgentsFemaleHumansMaleMicrobial Sensitivity TestsMiddle AgedSensitivity and SpecificityUnited KingdomUrinary Tract InfectionsUrineWalesAnti-Bacterial Agents

Identifiers

PMID26245946
OpenAlexW1094548600

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.