ArticleBMC geriatrics2022
Comparative study of the bacterial distribution and antimicrobial susceptibility of uropathogens in older and younger patients with urinary stones.
Article in BMC geriatrics, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled 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.
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
5 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Pooled it
- Urinary Tract Infection in Patients with Urolithiasis: A Large Retrospective Observational Study of Clinical Features and Microbiological Spectrum.Pathogens (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Observational
- Precision diagnosis of preoperative infection in urolithiasis: integrating targeted next-generation sequencing for enhanced accuracy-a multicenter cohort study.BMC infectious diseases · 2025Article
- Characteristics of Bacteria in Urine and Stones from Patients Treated with Percutaneous Nephrolithotomy and Association with Postoperative Infection.Infection and drug resistance · 2024Article
- The immune responses to differentFrontiers in immunology · 2022Review
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.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThis study compared the bacterial spectrum and antibiotic susceptibility of uropathogens in older and younger patients with urinary stones to provide appropriate antibiotic management.
methodsWe retrospectively reviewed urinary tract infection patients with urolithiasis, presented to Xiangya Hospital from March 2014 to April 2021. Patients were divided into older and younger groups according to 60 years of age. The bacterial spectrum and drug sensitivity of uropathogens were compared.
resultsA total of 542 strains of uropathogens (177 in older and 365 in younger groups) were isolated from 507 patients. E. coli (41.8% vs 43.6%) remains the most common pathogen, followed by E. faecalis (6.2% vs 9.6%) in older and younger groups, respectively. Particularly, K. pneumoniae was significantly more frequent in older (9.6%) than in younger group (4.7%, P < .05). E. faecium was substantially more prevalent in older group (6.2%) than in younger group (2.7%, P < .05). The proportion of males increased in older patients (47.3%) than in younger patients (34.9%, P = 0.007). In both groups, major Gram-negative bacteria (E. coli and K. pneumoniae) revealed a high sensitivity over 70% to piperacillin/tazobactam, imipenem and amikacin, whereas the resistance level was high to penicillin, tetracycline and vancomycin. Major Gram-positive (E. faecalis and E. faecium) isolates demonstrated high sensitivity of over 50% to gentamicin and vancomycin in both groups. Furthermore, uropathogens isolated from younger urolithiasis patients were more susceptible to antimicrobials than those isolated from older patients.
conclusionsThe male increased in the older urolithiasis patients with UTI and uropathogens microbial spectrum in older urolithiasis patients are different from younger. High susceptibility and age should be utilized in empirical antibiotic selection to avoid increased multidrug-resistant bacteria.
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.