ArticleBJGP open2022
Clinical prediction rules for childhood urinary tract infections: a cross-sectional study in ambulatory care.
Article in BJGP open, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed, 3 citations in OpenAlex.
- Diagnosing Urinary Tract Infection in Young Febrile Children in the Emergency Department.JAMA network open · 2026Article
- Predictive value of dipstick urinalysis for detecting pyelonephritis in children aged 0-12 months.Frontiers in pediatrics · 2026Article
- Antibiotic Use for Common Infections in Pediatric Emergency Departments: A Narrative Review.Antibiotics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2023Review
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 2 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundDiagnosing childhood urinary tract infections (UTIs) is challenging. Clinical prediction rules may help to identify children that require urine sampling. However, there is a lack of research to determine the accuracy of the scores in general practice.
aimTo validate clinical prediction rules (UTI Calculator [UTICalc], A Diagnosis of Urinary Tract Infection in Young Children [DUTY], and Gorelick score) for paediatric UTIs in primary care. DESIGN &
settingPost-hoc analysis of a cross-sectional study in 39 general practices and two emergency departments (EDs). The study took place in Belgium from March 2019-March 2020.
methodPhysicians recruited acutely ill children aged ≤18 years and sampled urine systematically for culture. Per rule, an apparent validation was performed, and sensitivities and specificities were calculated with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) per threshold in the target group. For the DUTY coefficient-based algorithm, a logistic calibration was performed and the area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUC) was calculated with 95% CI.
resultsOf 834 children aged ≤18 years recruited, there were 297 children aged <5 years. The UTICalc and Gorelick score had high-to-moderate sensitivity and low specificity: UTICalc (≥2%) 75% and 16%, respectively; Gorelick (≥2 variables) 91% and 8%, respectively. In contrast, the DUTY score ≥5 points had low sensitivity (8%) but high specificity (99%). Urine samples would be obtained in 72% versus 38% (UTICalc), 92% versus 38% (Gorelick) or 1% versus 32% (DUTY) of children, compared with routine care. The number of missed infections per score was 1/4 (UTICalc), 2/23 (Gorelick), and 24/26 (DUTY). The UTICalc + dipstick model had high sensitivity and specificity (100% and 91%), resulting in no missed cases and 59% (95% CI = 49% to 68%) of antibiotics prescribed inappropriately.
conclusionIn this study, the UTICalc and Gorelick score were useful for ruling out UTI, but resulted in high urine sampling rates. The DUTY score had low sensitivity, meaning that 92% of UTIs would be missed.
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.