Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35943561›Full record

ArticleInternational urogynecology journal2023

Home urinary tract infection testing: patient experience and satisfaction with polymerase chain reaction kit.

Alexandra I Melnyk, Coralee Toal, Stephanie Glass Clark, Megan Bradley

Open access · bronzeAbstract read
In one paragraph

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.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
5citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
0.8field-weighted citation impact, top 29% 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

5 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 5 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Observational
  3. Review
  4. Article
  5. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

4 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

Alexandra I MelnykDepartment of Obstetrics, Gynecology and Reproductive Sciences, Division of Urogynecology and Reconstructive Pelvic Surgery, Magee-Womens Hospital of UPMC, University of Pittsburgh, 300 Halket Street, Suite 2323, Pittsburgh, PA, 15213, USA. aimelnyk3@gmail.com.ORCID 0000-0003-4560-912X
Coralee ToalDepartment of Obstetrics, Gynecology and Reproductive Sciences, Magee-Womens Hospital of UPMC, University of Pittsburgh, Pittsburgh, PA, USA.
Stephanie Glass ClarkDepartment of Obstetrics, Gynecology and Reproductive Sciences, Division of Urogynecology and Reconstructive Pelvic Surgery, Magee-Womens Hospital of UPMC, University of Pittsburgh, 300 Halket Street, Suite 2323, Pittsburgh, PA, 15213, USA.
Megan BradleyDepartment of Obstetrics, Gynecology and Reproductive Sciences, Division of Urogynecology and Reconstructive Pelvic Surgery, Magee-Womens Hospital of UPMC, University of Pittsburgh, 300 Halket Street, Suite 2323, Pittsburgh, PA, 15213, USA.
University of Pittsburgh · US

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

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

Patient SatisfactionReagent Kits, DiagnosticUrinary Tract InfectionsAgedCross-Sectional StudiesEscherichia coliFemaleHumansPandemicsPatient Outcome AssessmentPersonal SatisfactionPolymerase Chain ReactionReagent Kits, DiagnosticHome testPatient satisfactionPCR testingUTIUTI PCR test

Identifiers

PMID35943561
PMCPMC9361247
OpenAlexW4290755176

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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.