Evidence map›Paper›PMID 31391227›Full record

ArticleJournal of clinical microbiology2019

Incidence and Diagnostic Yield of Repeat Urine Culture in Hospitalized Patients: an Opportunity for Diagnostic Stewardship.

Kap Sum Foong, Satish Munigala, Ronald Jackups, Melanie L Yarbrough, C A Burnham, David K Warren

Open access · bronzeAbstract read
In one paragraph

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 5 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
5citing papers in PubMed
0.8field-weighted citation impact, top 26% of its field
1 · What the graph read from 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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

5 citing papers in PubMed, 14 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

6 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

Kap Sum FoongSection of Infectious Diseases, Department of Medicine, University of Illinois College of Medicine, Peoria, Illinois, USA FoongKS@uic.edu dwarren@wustl.edu.ORCID 0000-0001-6259-0032
Satish MunigalaDivision of Infectious Diseases, Department of Medicine, Washington University School of Medicine, St. Louis, Missouri, USA.
Ronald JackupsDepartment of Pathology and Immunology, Washington University School of Medicine, St. Louis, Missouri, USA.
Melanie L YarbroughDepartment of Pathology and Immunology, Washington University School of Medicine, St. Louis, Missouri, USA.
C A BurnhamDepartment of Pathology and Immunology, Washington University School of Medicine, St. Louis, Missouri, USA.ORCID 0000-0002-1137-840X
David K WarrenDivision of Infectious Diseases, Department of Medicine, Washington University School of Medicine, St. Louis, Missouri, USA FoongKS@uic.edu dwarren@wustl.edu.ORCID 0000-0001-8679-8241
Washington University in St. Louis · USIllinois College · US

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

There is limited knowledge on the incidence, diagnostic yield, and cost associated with inappropriate repeat urine cultures. The factors that affect repeat urine culturing practices are not well understood. We conducted a retrospective study of adult inpatients who had ≥1 urine culture performed during their hospitalization between January 2015 and February 2018. We analyzed the proportion of inappropriate repeat urine cultures performed <48 h after the index culture. We defined an inappropriate repeat urine culture to be a repeat urine culture performed following a negative index culture or a repeat urine specimen obtained from the same urinary catheter. Overall, 28,141 urine cultures were performed on 21,306 patients. There were 2,060 (7.3%) urine cultures repeated in <48 h. Of these, 1,120 (54.4%) urine cultures were inappropriate. Predictors for inappropriate repeat urine cultures included collection of the initial urine sample for culture in the emergency department (adjusted odds ratio [aOR], 5.65; 95% confidence interval [CI], 4.70 to 6.78), male gender (aOR, 1.61; 95% CI, 1.42 to 1.84), congestive heart failure (aOR, 1.20; 95% CI, 1.03 to 1.38), and a longer hospital stay (aOR, 1.01 per day; 95% CI, 1.00 to 1.01). A patient with an index urine culture obtained from an indwelling catheter (aOR, 0.65; 95% CI, 0.53 to 0.80) was less likely to have an inappropriate repeat culture. Among 1,120 negative index urine cultures, only 4.7% of repeat cultures were positive for bacteriuria. The estimated laboratory charges for inappropriate repeat urine cultures were $16,800 over the study period. Among inpatients, over half of all urine cultures repeated in <48 h were inappropriate. This offers an opportunity for diagnostic stewardship and optimization of antimicrobial use.

Indexed as

HospitalizationAgedBacteriuriaComorbidityCross InfectionFemaleHumansIncidenceMaleMiddle AgedUrinalysisUrinary Tract Infectionsdiagnostic stewardshipdiagnostic yieldinappropriate testingurine culture

Identifiers

PMID31391227
PMCPMC6760960
OpenAlexW2965030961

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.