ArticleJournal of clinical microbiology2019
Evaluation of BacterioScan 216Dx in Comparison to Urinalysis as a Screening Tool for Diagnosis of Urinary Tract Infections in Children.
Article in Journal of clinical microbiology, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 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
6 citing papers in PubMed, 10 citations in OpenAlex.
- MIDAS: rapid, multiplexed molecular profiling for integrated host-pathogen analysis.Nature communications · 2025Article
- Predictive performance of urinalysis for urine culture results according to causative microorganisms: an integrated analysis with artificial intelligence.Journal of clinical microbiology · 2024Article
- Rapid Drug Susceptibility Testing to Preserve Antibiotics.Methods in molecular biology (Clifton, N.J.) · 2024Review
- Rapid Bacterial Detection in Urine Using Laser Scattering and Deep Learning Analysis.Microbiology spectrum · 2022Article
- Rapid Antimicrobial Susceptibility Testing on Clinical Urine Samples by Video-Based Object Scattering Intensity Detection.Analytical chemistry · 2021Article
- Accuracy of matrix-assisted laser desorption ionization time-of-flight mass spectrometry for direct bacterial identification from culture-positive urine samples.Annals of translational medicine · 2021Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Urinalysis (UA) has routinely been used as a screening tool prior to urine culture set up. BacterioScan 216Dx is an FDA-cleared semiautomated system to detect bacterial growth in urine. The aim of this study was to evaluate 216Dx in comparison to UA for diagnosis of urinary tract infection (UTI) in children. Clean-catch, unpreserved urine samples from children aged <18 years were tested by 216Dx, and positive urine samples in media were processed for direct bacterial identification by matrix-assisted laser desorption ionization-time of flight (MALDI-TOF) mass spectrometry. Sensitivity and specificity of 216Dx and urinalysis (UA) were determined against urine culture. Of 287 urine samples obtained from children (median age, 108 months), 44.0% and 56.0% were UA positive and negative, respectively, while 216Dx detected 27% and 73% as positive and negative, respectively. Compared to culture, the overall sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value (PPV), and negative predictive value (NPV) of 216Dx versus UA were 92.1% versus 97.3%, 82.7% versus 63.8%, 44.8% versus 29.1%, and 98.6% versus 99.3%, respectively. Among 216Dx true-positive (TP) samples (
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.