ArticlePediatric nephrology (Berlin, Germany)2016
Low urinary bacterial counts: do they count?
Article in Pediatric nephrology (Berlin, Germany), 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 11 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
11 citing papers in PubMed.
- Ultrasonographic evaluation of urinary tract morbidity in school-aged and preschool-aged children infected with Schistosoma haematobium and its evolution after praziquantel treatment: A randomized controlled trial.PLoS neglected tropical diseases · 2017Trial
- Lower Urinary Tract Inflammation and Infection: Key Microbiological and Immunological Aspects.Journal of clinical medicine · 2024Review
- Elevated UTI Biomarkers in Symptomatic Patients with Urine Microbial Densities of 10,000 CFU/mL Indicate a Lower Threshold for Diagnosing UTIs.Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2023Article
- Treatment and Epidemiology of Third-Generation Cephalosporin-Resistant Urinary Tract Infections.Pediatrics · 2022Article
- Clinical prediction rules for childhood urinary tract infections: a cross-sectional study in ambulatory care.BJGP open · 2022Article
- Clinical guidelines of UTIs in children: quality appraisal with AGREE II and recommendations analysis.BMJ open · 2022Article
- Urinary tract infections in children.Lancet (London, England) · 2020Review
- Defining urinary tract infection by bacterial colony counts: a case for 100,000 colonies/ml as the best threshold.Pediatric nephrology (Berlin, Germany) · 2019Article
- Defining urinary tract infection by bacterial colony counts: a case for less than 100,000 colonies/mL as the threshold.Pediatric nephrology (Berlin, Germany) · 2019Article
- What Urinary Colony Count Indicates a Urinary Tract Infection in Children?The Journal of pediatrics · 2017Article
- Urine neutrophil gelatinase-associated lipocalin and other biomarkers in infants with urinary tract infection and in febrile controls.Pediatric nephrology (Berlin, Germany) · 2017Article
Corrections and comments
- Comment on
Authors and funding
1 author.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
In their article which appears in this issue of Pediatric Nephrology, Dr. S. Swerkersson and co-workers claim that as many as one in every five infants with a true episode of urinary tract infection (UTI) will be missed with the commonly used cut-off level of ≥10(5) colony forming units (CFU)/mL. This controversial finding is supported by the results of seven previous studies including a total of 1587 children. Dr. E.H. Kass, who in the 1950s suggested the presently used cut-off level, knew at the time that it excluded a number of patients with a true infection. Later studies in adult patients also showed that up to 46–49% of women with a likely diagnosis of cystitis had low bacterial counts. These findings can, if true, improve our understanding of cases of unexplained postinfectious renal scarring. Children with low bacterial counts during an acute infectious episode have a significant risk of receiving delayed or even no antimicrobial treatment. The results of scientific studies are also confounded if 20 % of the subjects with a true infection are wrongly included in a control group diagnosed as having no UTI due to low bacterial counts. This problem cannot be easily solved by lowering the cut-off level and generally accepting that any bacterial count signifies a Btrue^ infection as this approach will drastically reduce the specificity of the culture result. Instead, as many as possible urine samples for culture should be collected from babies, infants and small children with a suprapubic bladder puncture, or a catheterised sample. In such samples bacterial counts as low as 103 CFU/mL are generally regarded as significant. In many cases, however, the only possibility is a Bclean catch^ or bag sample. In these situations, the treating physician needs to take all relevant clinical and laboratory parameters into account and if clinically important data support the diagnosis of a UTI not disregard this diagnosis based only on low bacterial counts. C-reactive protein or procalcitonin can, in a febrile child, help the physician differentiate between a febrile bacterial UTI and a viral infection. A positive nitrite test provides, albeit with a low sensitivity, strong support for a UTI diagnosis.
Indexed as
Identifiers
26474778What 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.