ReviewEuropean geriatric medicine2019
Which near-patient tests might improve the diagnosis of UTI in older people in urgent care settings? A mapping review and consensus process.
Review in European geriatric medicine, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the 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.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
1 citing paper in PubMed, 2 citations in OpenAlex.
- C-Reactive Protein Monitoring Identifies Urinary Tract Infections in Ambulatory Kidney Transplant Recipients.Canadian journal of kidney health and disease · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeThe aim of this study was to map out the existing knowledge on near-patient tests for urinary tract infections, and use a consensus building approach to identify those which might be worthy of further evaluation in the urgent care context, defined as clinically useful and feasible results available within 4-24 h.
methodsA systematic search for reviews describing diagnostic tests for UTI was undertaken in Medline, EMBASE, Cochrane database of systematic reviews and CINAHL selected reviews were retained according to a priori inclusion and exclusion criteria, and then graded for quality using the CASP tool for reviews. A consensus process involving microbiologists and chemical pathologists helped identify which test might conceivably be applied in the urgent care context (e.g. Emergency Department, giving results within 24 h).
resultsThe initial search identified 1079 papers, from which 26 papers describing 35 diagnostic tests were retained for review. The overall quality was limited, with only 7/26 retained papers scoring more than 50% on the CASP criteria. Reviews on urine dipstick testing reported wide confidence intervals for sensitivity and specificity; several raised concerns about urine dip testing in older people. A number of novel biomarkers were reported upon but appeared not to be helpful in differentiating infection from asymptomatic bacteriuria. Blood markers such as CRP and procalcitonin were reported to be helpful in monitoring rather than diagnosing UTI. The consensus process helped to refine the 35 test down to 17 that might be useful in the urgent care context: urinalysis (nitrites and leucocytes), uriscreen catalase test, lactoferrin, secretory immunoglobulin A, xanthine oxidase, soluble triggering receptor expressed on myeloid cells, A-1 microglobulin (a1 Mg) and a1 Mg/creatinine ratio, cytokine IL-6, RapidBac, MALDI-TOF, electronic noses, colorimetric sensor arrays, electro chemical biosensor, WBC count (blood), C-reactive peptide, erythrocyte sedimentation rate.
conclusionsA wide range of diagnostic tests have been explored to diagnose UTI, but, in general, have been poorly evaluated or have wide variation in predictive properties. This study identified 17 tests for UTI that seemed to offer some primes and merit further evaluation for diagnosing UTI in older people in urgent care settings.
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.