ArticleTrials2019
Evaluation of bladder stimulation as a non-invasive technique for urine collection to diagnose urinary tract infection in infants under 6 months: a randomized multicenter study ("EE-Sti.Ve.N").
Article in Trials, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT03801213 (Evaluation of the Bladder Stimulation, a Non-invasive Technique of Urine Collection, in Infant Less Than 6 Months to Diagnose Urinary Tract Infection), which is not on this map. Cited by 1 paper.
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.
Evaluation of the Bladder Stimulation, a Non-invasive Technique of Urine Collection, in Infant Less Than 6 Months to Diagnose Urinary Tract Infection: a Randomized Multicenter Study
Who cites it
1 citing paper in PubMed, 4 citations in OpenAlex.
- Evaluation of the Quick Wee method of inducing faster clean catch urine collection in pre-continent infants: a randomized controlled trial.World journal of pediatrics : WJP · 2022Trial
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
13 authors at 4 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundFebrile urinary tract infection (UTI) is common in infants and needs to be diagnosed quickly. However, the symptoms are non-specific, and diagnosis can only be confirmed after high quality urinalysis. The American Academy of Pediatrics recommends suprapubic aspiration (1-9% contamination) and urinary catheterization (8-14% contamination) for urine collection but both these procedures are invasive. Recent studies have shown a new non-invasive method of collecting urine, bladder stimulation, to be quick and safe. However, few data about bacterial contamination rates have been published for this technique. We hypothesize that the contamination rate of urine collection by bladder stimulation to diagnose febrile UTI in infants under 6 months is equivalent to that of urinary catheterization. METHODS/
designThis trial aims to assess equivalence in terms of bacterial contamination of urinary samples collected by urinary catheterization and bladder stimulation to diagnose UTI. Seven hundred seventy infants under 6 months presenting with unexplained fever in one of four Pediatric Emergency Departments in France will be enrolled. Each child will be randomized into a bladder stimulation or urinary catheterization group. The primary endpoints will be the validity of the urine sample assessed by the presence of contamination on bacterial culture.
conclusionA high recruitment rate is achievable due to the high prevalence of suspected UTIs in infants. The medical risk is the same as that for routine clinical care as we analyze patients with isolated fever. If our hypothesis holds true and the rate of urine contamination collected by bladder stimulation is acceptable, the infants included in the study will have benefited from a non-invasive and reliable means of collecting urine.
trial registrationClinicalTrials.gov, NCT03801213. Registered on 11 January 2019.
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.