ArticleInternational urogynecology journal2023
Home urinary tract infection testing: patient experience and satisfaction with polymerase chain reaction kit.
Article in International urogynecology journal, 2023. 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, 5 citations in OpenAlex.
- Molecular based diagnostic testing for urinary tract infections: the results remain unclear.World journal of urology · 2026Pooled it
- Nationwide Observational Case-Control Study of Risk Factors for Aerococcus Bloodstream Infections, Sweden.Emerging infectious diseases · 2025Observational
- Rapid and accurate testing for urinary tract infection: new clothes for the emperor.Clinical microbiology reviews · 2025Review
- Comparison of polymerase chain reaction and next-generation sequencing with conventional urine culture for the diagnosis of urinary tract infections: A meta-analysis.Open medicine (Warsaw, Poland) · 2024Article
- Young Women's Attitudes and Behaviors in Treatment and Prevention of UTIs: Are Biomedical Students at an Advantage?Antibiotics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2023Article
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 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introduction and hypothesisWe sought to evaluate patient satisfaction with a novel multiplex PCR UTI home collection kit for symptomatic UTI in a urogynecologic population. We secondarily sought to characterize reported uropathogens and resistance profiles of uropathogens in this population. We hypothesized that patients would be satisfied.
methodsThis was a cross-sectional study of women who were surveyed later about their experience undergoing evaluation for a UTI with a home UTI test at a large tertiary care urogynecology practice in 2020. Symptomatic patients were sent a home UTI kit. We assessed patient satisfaction at a later time with a 5-point Likert scale and collected baseline information. The primary outcome was patient satisfaction with this experience. Secondary outcomes included type and number of uropathogens on testing.
resultsA total of 30 patients [73% white race, mean age 71.9 (SD 12.0) years] were surveyed. Patients responded with a mean score of 4.7/5 to all satisfaction questions. Overall, 86% (26/30) of patients would choose this test again. Of those asked if they would choose this test again outside of the COVID-19 pandemic, 86% responded affirmatively. The most common symptoms reported included dysuria (53%), urgency (37%) and frequency (30%). The most common pathogens identified included Escherichia coli (70%), Enterococcus faecalis (60%) and Aerococcus urinae (43%).
conclusionsPatients were satisfied with home UTI PCR testing and the majority would choose this option again. Home UTI PCR testing revealed common uropathogens for a population with a high proportion of recurrent UTI, but additional research comparing home versus in-office urine PCR testing is necessary.
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.