ArticleInternational urology and nephrology2016
Does the presence of vesicoureteral reflux affect in vitro uropathogenic E. coli growth rate in urine?
Article in International urology and nephrology, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed, 1 citations in OpenAlex.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundUroepithelial molecules like uroplakins are involved both in the development of urinary tract and in colonization, attachment and invasion of uropathogenic Escherichia coli (UPEC). Uroplakin disorders are also associated with vesicoureteral reflux (VUR). We hypothesized that urine contents, as well as urinary flow, may be altered in VUR, and aimed to determine whether in vitro UPEC growth is increased in urine from the refluxing systems.
methodsChildren evaluated by voiding cystourethrography for UTI were enrolled. Groups 1 and 2 included children with and without VUR, respectively. Sterile urine samples were obtained from all patients, and 2 × 10(2) cfu/mL UPEC suspension was inoculated into these samples. After incubation for 24 h, colony counts were assessed. Both groups were compared for UPEC growth and colony counts.
resultsForty-two urine samples were included (21 in each group). UPEC was cultured in 9 (43 %) and 3 (14 %) samples in Groups 1 and 2, respectively (p = 0.040, OR 4.5). Colony counts were similar in both groups (log x; 2.36 ± 0.25 vs. 2.37 ± 0.12, p = 0.923).
conclusionInoculation of 2 × 10(2) cfu UPEC resulted in growth in almost half of the urine samples from refluxing systems, while UPEC growth was inhibited in most urine samples from non-refluxing systems suggesting that urine contents in refluxing units change in such a way that UPEC growth is facilitated.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What 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.