ArticleInternational urogynecology journal2020
Is a pelvic examination contributory in the initial evaluation of women with recurrent urinary tract infections?
Article in International urogynecology journal, 2020. 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.
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
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introduction and hypothesisRecurrent urinary tract infections (rUTIs) affect up to 44% of women; evidenced-based guidelines regarding the contributory role of a pelvic examination in these women are lacking. We hypothesize that routine pelvic examination has a limited role in evaluation and management of women with rUTI when appropriate symptoms-based screening is performed and normal post-void residual volume (PVR) is confirmed.
methodsWe performed a retrospective chart review of women ages 18-85 years presenting to Wake Forest Pelvic Health Center with two culture-proven UTIs in 6 months or three UTIs in 12 months with a documented pelvic examination. Pregnant women were excluded. Data extraction included demographics, medical history, screening assessment of vaginal bulge symptoms, urine culture results, imaging, physical/pelvic examination findings, PVR, treatment recommendations and outcomes within 1 year of initial assessment. Descriptive statistics and Fisher's exact test were performed.
resultsOf 160 charts screened, 91 met the inclusion criteria. Nineteen (21%) had symptoms of vaginal bulge, and 14 (17%) had PVR > 100 ml. Pelvic examination provided new/contributory information in eight (8.8%) of women. The negative predictive value of absence of bulge symptoms and normal PVR was 89%. Within 1 year, 41 (46%) reported symptom resolution with rUTI treatment with no difference between those with or without a contributory pelvic examination (p value = 0.64).
conclusionsIn women with rUTI who report absence of vaginal bulge symptoms and have a PVR < 100 ml, a pelvic examination provides contributory information in < 10% of women and did not change treatment outcomes.
Indexed as
Identifiers
31832717What 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.