ArticleInternal and emergency medicine2018
Cost effectiveness of pneumococcal urinary antigen in Emergency Department: a pragmatic real-life study.
Article in Internal and emergency medicine, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 10 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled 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.
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
10 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Economic Analyses of Respiratory Tract Infection Diagnostics: A Systematic Review.PharmacoEconomics · 2021Pooled it
- Use of microbiology tests in the era of increasing AMR rates- a multicentre hospital cohort study.Antimicrobial resistance and infection control · 2019Trial
- Impact of pneumococcal urinary antigen testing on clinical outcomes in patients hospitalized with community-acquired pneumonia.European journal of clinical microbiology & infectious diseases : official publication of the European Society of Clinical Microbiology · 2025Article
- Detecting Respiratory Pathogens for Diagnosing Lower Respiratory Tract Infections at the Point of Care: Challenges and Opportunities.Biosensors · 2025Review
- Things We Do for No Reason - OrderingOpen forum infectious diseases · 2024Article
- Derivation and external validation of a prediction model for pneumococcal urinary antigen test positivity in patients with community-acquired pneumonia.Antimicrobial stewardship & healthcare epidemiology : ASHE · 2023Article
- Urinary Antigen Testing for Respiratory Infections: Current Perspectives on Utility and Limitations.Infection and drug resistance · 2022Review
- Impact ofOpen forum infectious diseases · 2022Article
- A Reappraisal of Streptococcal Urinary Antigen Testing for Antibiotic Stewardship.Clinical infectious diseases : an official publication of the Infectious Diseases Society of America · 2020Article
- Urinary antigen testing for pneumococcal pneumonia: is there evidence to make its use uncommon in clinical practice?ERJ open research · 2020Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
11 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Community-acquired pneumonia (CAP) is frequent and can be life-threatening. Streptococcus pneumoniae is the main bacteria involved, and is susceptible to penicillin A. Rapid microbiological diagnosis could then help reduce the antimicrobial spectrum. The pneumococcal urinary antigen (PUA) test is fast and easy to perform, but its impact on antimicrobial prescription and cost-effectiveness in emergency departments (ED) is not well known. We performed a pragmatic real life retrospective study in an adult ED to assess its usefulness: proportion of positive results, impact on antimicrobial prescriptions and cost-effectiveness. Over 3 years (from January 1st 2012 to December 31st 2014), 979 PUA tests were reutilized in our ED among 1224 patients who consulted for CAP; 51 (5.2%) were positive. Among them, 10 led to a modification of the antimicrobial treatment, but only 7 (14.3%) were in accordance with the results. The total cost of a PUA test is 27€. As only 7 PUA tests led to appropriate antimicrobial modification, we deemed that 972 had no impact, and the potential cost savings, if the test had not been used, would have been 26,244 € (972 × 27) during 3 years, that is 8748 € per year. Thus, it seems that the PUA test should not be generally used in the ED considering its low rate of positivity and the difficulties for physicians to adapt antibiotic treatment accordingly. This attitude change in utilization would lead to substantial cost savings.
Indexed as
Identifiers
27988829What 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.