Evidence map›Paper›PMID 36093322›Full record

ReviewEuropean urology open science2022

Molecular Diagnostic Methods Versus Conventional Urine Culture for Diagnosis and Treatment of Urinary Tract Infection: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis.

Alec Szlachta-McGinn, K Marie Douglass, Un Young Rebecca Chung, Nicholas James Jackson, J Curtis Nickel, A Lenore Ackerman

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in European urology open science, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 56 papers, 5 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
56citing papers in PubMed, 5 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
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

56 citing papers in PubMed, 5 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Pooled it
  6. Article
  7. Biofilm-Mediated Antimicrobial Resistance in PediatricAntibiotics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026
    Review
  8. Article
  9. Review
  10. Article
  11. Review
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Review
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

6 authors.

Alec Szlachta-McGinnDepartment of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Division of Female Pelvic Medicine and Reconstructive Surgery, David Geffen School of Medicine, University of California Los Angeles, Los Angeles, CA, USA.
K Marie DouglassDepartment of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Division of Female Pelvic Medicine and Reconstructive Surgery, David Geffen School of Medicine, University of California Los Angeles, Los Angeles, CA, USA.
Un Young Rebecca ChungDepartment of Medicine Statistics Core, University of California Los Angeles, Los Angeles, CA, USA.
Nicholas James JacksonDepartment of Medicine Statistics Core, University of California Los Angeles, Los Angeles, CA, USA.
J Curtis NickelDepartment of Urology, Queens University, Kingston, Canada.
A Lenore AckermanDepartment of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Division of Female Pelvic Medicine and Reconstructive Surgery, David Geffen School of Medicine, University of California Los Angeles, Los Angeles, CA, USA.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Context: Urine culture has low sensitivity in the diagnosis of urinary tract infection (UTI). Next-generation sequencing (NGS) and polymerase chain reaction (PCR) are culture-independent molecular methods available for commercial use to diagnose UTI. Objective: To systematically evaluate the evidence comparing the diagnostic and therapeutic values of molecular diagnostic methods to urine culture in the management of UTI in adults. Evidence acquisition: We performed a critical review of Embase, Ovid, and PubMed in February 2022 according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Review and Meta-analyses statement. Studies involving pregnant women, ureteral stones, ureteral stents, and percutaneous nephrostomy tubes were excluded. Risk of bias and methodological quality were assessed using the Cochrane risk of bias tool and Newcastle Ottawa Scale. Fifteen publications were selected for inclusion. Evidence synthesis: Included reports compared NGS (nine studies) and PCR (six studies) to urine culture. A meta-analysis of seven similar studies utilizing NGS demonstrates that NGS is more sensitive in the identification of urinary bacteria and detects greater species diversity per urine sample than culture. PCR protocols designed to detect a diverse range of microbes had increased sensitivity and species diversity compared with culture. Phenotypic and genotypic resistomes are concordant in approximately 85% of cases. There is insufficient evidence to compare patient symptomatic responses to antibiotic therapy guided by molecular testing versus standard susceptibility testing. Conclusions: Moderately strong evidence exists that molecular diagnostics demonstrate increased sensitivity in detecting urinary bacteria at the expense of poor specificity in controls. Additional data comparing patient symptoms and cure rates following antibiotic selection directed by molecular methods compared with culture are needed to elucidate their place in UTI care. Patient summary: We compare culture-independent molecular methods with urine culture in the management of urinary tract infection. We found good evidence that molecular methods detect more bacteria than culture; however, the clinical implications to support their routine use are unclear.

Indexed as

Next-generation sequencingPolymerase chain reactionUrinary tract infectionUrine culture

Identifiers

PMID36093322
PMCPMC9459428

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
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.