ArticleDer Urologe. Ausg. A2016
[Resistance testing for urinary tract infections. A barrier to guideline implementation].
Article in Der Urologe. Ausg. A, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundUrinary tract infections (UTI) are among the most common reasons for antibiotic prescriptions. Due to increasing resistance rates, antibiotic therapy should be targeted and based on evidence-based recommendations. Test results and recommendations by medical laboratories have a relevant impact on the choice of antibiotics. The extent to which medical laboratories consider antibiotics recommended by evidence-based treatment guidelines in microbiological testing is unclear.
objectivesThe aim of the present study is to assess whether guideline recommendations for antibiotic therapy of UTI are taken into account by medical laboratories in northern Germany. MATERIALS AND
methodsA standardized and piloted questionnaire was used in our telephone survey. All microbiological laboratories in northern Germany (Hamburg, Bremen, Lower Saxony, Schleswig-Holstein, and Mecklenburg-Western Pomerania; n = 82) were asked about their standards in diagnosing and microbiological testing of urine cultures.
resultsA total of 71 of the 82 contacted laboratories perform microbiological tests, whereby 40 of these participated (56 %). Most of the laboratories (43 %) routinely perform microbiological testing when bacterial counts were ≥ 10(4) colony forming units per ml (CFU/ml), 15 % ≥ 10(5) CFU/ml, 17 % ≥ 10(3) CFU/ml, and 8 % ≥ 10(2) CFU/ml. Antibiotic testing includes ciprofloxacin (95 %), cotrimoxazole (87.5 %), trimethoprim (57 %), fosfomycin (85 %), and nitrofurantoin (72 %).
conclusionsThe diagnostic threshold recommended in evidence-based guidelines (10(3) CFU/ml) is used only by a few laboratories. Antibiotics recommended as a first line therapy are only partly taken into account in microbiological testing. This variance in different diagnostic thresholds and microbiological testing is a barrier to guideline implementation.
Indexed as
Identifiers
26450093What 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.