Evidence map›Paper›PMID 34990390›Full record

Trial reportThe British journal of general practice : the journal of the Royal College of General Practitioners2022

Urine collection devices to reduce contamination in urine samples for diagnosis of uncomplicated UTI: a single-blind randomised controlled trial in primary care.

Gail Hayward, Sam Mort, Ly-Mee Yu, Merryn Voysey, Margaret Glogowska, Caroline Croxson, Yaling Yang, Julie Allen, Johanna Cook, Sarah Tearne and 6 more

Open access · hybridAbstract readRandomized Controlled Trial
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Trial report in The British journal of general practice : the journal of the Royal College of General Practitioners, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
6citing papers in PubMed
1.5field-weighted citation impact, top 17% 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

6 citing papers in PubMed, 14 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Trial
  2. Experiences of urine collection devices during suspected urinary tract infections: a qualitative study in primary care.The British journal of general practice : the journal of the Royal College of General Practitioners · 2023
    Trial
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Astonishing results.The British journal of general practice : the journal of the Royal College of General Practitioners · 2022
    Article
  6. Midstream versus first-void urine samples.The British journal of general practice : the journal of the Royal College of General Practitioners · 2022
    Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

16 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

Gail HaywardNuffield Department of Primary Care Health Sciences, University of Oxford, Oxford.
Sam MortNuffield Department of Primary Care Health Sciences, University of Oxford, Oxford.
Ly-Mee YuNuffield Department of Primary Care Health Sciences, University of Oxford, Oxford.
Merryn VoyseyNuffield Department of Primary Care Health Sciences, University of Oxford; Oxford Vaccine Group, Department of Paediatrics, University of Oxford, Oxford.
Margaret GlogowskaNuffield Department of Primary Care Health Sciences, University of Oxford, Oxford.
Caroline CroxsonNuffield Department of Primary Care Health Sciences, University of Oxford, Oxford.
Yaling YangNuffield Department of Primary Care Health Sciences, University of Oxford, Oxford.
Julie AllenNuffield Department of Primary Care Health Sciences, University of Oxford, Oxford.
Johanna CookNuffield Department of Primary Care Health Sciences, University of Oxford, Oxford.
Sarah TearneInstitute of Applied Health Research, University of Birmingham, Birmingham.
Nicola BlakeyNuffield Department of Primary Care Health Sciences, University of Oxford, Oxford.
Sharon TonnerNuffield Department of Primary Care Health Sciences, University of Oxford, Oxford.
Vanshika SharmaNuffield Department of Primary Care Health Sciences, University of Oxford, Oxford.
Meena PatilNuffield Department of Primary Care Health Sciences, University of Oxford, Oxford.
Sadie KellyNuffield Department of Primary Care Health Sciences, University of Oxford, Oxford.
Christopher C ButlerNuffield Department of Primary Care Health Sciences, University of Oxford, Oxford.
University of Oxford · GBUniversity of Birmingham · GB

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundUrine collection devices (UCDs) are being marketed and used in clinical settings to reduce urine sample contamination, despite inadequate supporting evidence.

aimTo determine whether UCDs, compared with standardised instructions for urine sample collection, reduce the proportion of contaminated samples. DESIGN AND

settingSingle-blind randomised controlled trial in general practices in England and Wales.

methodWomen aged ≥18 years presenting with symptoms attributable to urinary tract infection (UTI) were randomised (1:1:1) to use either a Peezy UCD or a Whiz Midstream UCD, or were given standardised verbal instructions (SVI) for midstream sample collection. The primary outcome was the proportion of urine samples reported as contaminated by microbiology laboratory analysis.

resultsA total of 1264 women (Peezy UCD:

conclusionNeither the Peezy UCD nor the Whiz Midstream UCD reduced urine sample contamination when used by women presenting to primary care with suspected UTI. Their use cannot be recommended for this purpose in this setting.

Indexed as

Urinary Tract InfectionsUrine Specimen CollectionAdolescentAdultFemaleHumansPrimary Health CareSingle-Blind MethodSpecimen Handlingdiagnosisgeneral practicelaboratory analysisrandomised controlled trialurinary tract infectionsurine specimen collection

Identifiers

PMID34990390
PMCPMC8803092
OpenAlexW3210598408

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.