ArticleBMJ open2020
Point-of-care tests for urinary tract infections: protocol for a systematic review and meta-analysis of diagnostic test accuracy.
Article in BMJ open, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 10 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
10 citing papers in PubMed, 17 citations in OpenAlex.
- Evidence-based appraisal of two guidelines for the diagnosis of suspected, uncomplicated urinary tract infections in primary care: a diagnostic accuracy validation study.The Journal of antimicrobial chemotherapy · 2023Trial
- Diagnostic tests for urinary tract infections and antimicrobial resistance-a reality check between diagnostic innovation and implementation: a critical narrative review.Frontiers in cellular and infection microbiology · 2026Review
- General practitioners' decision making managing uncomplicated urinary tract infections in women: a qualitative study.BJGP open · 2024Article
- Deep Learning-Based Culture-Free Bacteria Detection in Urine Using Large-Volume Microscopy.Biosensors · 2024Article
- Flow cytometric detection of vancomycin-resistant Enterococcus faecium in urine using fluorescently labelled enterocin K1.Scientific reports · 2023Article
- Effect of Fluoroquinolone Use in Primary Care on the Development and Gradual Decay ofAntibiotics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2022Article
- Using an ATR-FTIR Technique to Detect Pathogens in Patients with Urinary Tract Infections: A Pilot Study.Sensors (Basel, Switzerland) · 2022Article
- Diagnostic value of different urine tests for urinary tract infection: a systematic review and meta-analysis.Translational andrology and urology · 2022Article
- Preoperative bacteriuria positivity on urinalysis increases wound complications in primary total hip arthroplasty regardless of the urine culture result.BMC musculoskeletal disorders · 2021Observational
- Point-of-care tests for urinary tract infections: protocol for a systematic review and meta-analysis of diagnostic test accuracy.BMJ open · 2020Article
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 at 1 institution in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionUrinary tract infections (UTIs) are the second most common type of infection worldwide, accounting for a large number of primary care consultations and antibiotic prescribing. Current diagnosis is based on an empirical approach, relying on symptoms and occasional use of urine dipsticks. The diagnostic reference standard is still urine culture, although it is not routinely recommended for uncomplicated UTIs in the community, due to time to diagnosis (48 hours). Faster point-of-care tests have been developed, but their diagnostic accuracy has not been compared. Our objective is to systematically review and meta-analyse the diagnostic accuracy of currently available point-of-care tests for UTIs. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: Studies evaluating the diagnostic accuracy of point-of-care tests for UTIs will be included. PubMed, Web of Science, Embase and Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews were searched from inception to 1 June 2019. Data extraction and risk-of-bias assessment will be assessed using the Quality Assessment of Diagnostic Accuracy Studies tool. Meta-analysis will be performed depending on data availability and heterogeneity. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: This is a systematic review protocol and therefore formal ethical approval is not required, as no primary, identifiable, personal data will be collected. Patients or the public were not involved in the design of our research. However, the findings from this review will be shared with key stakeholders, including patient groups, clinicians and guideline developers, and will also be presented and national and international conferences. PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER: CRD42018112019.
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.