Evidence map›Paper›PMID 36181584›Full record

Trial reportInternational urology and nephrology2023

Prospective multicentre randomized double-blind placebo-controlled parallel group study on the efficacy and tolerability of StroVac® in patients with recurrent symptomatic uncomplicated bacterial urinary tract infections.

S Nestler, C Peschel, A H Horstmann, W Vahlensieck, W Fabry, A Neisius

Erratum issuedOpen access · hybridAbstract readRandomized Controlled TrialMulticenter Study
In one paragraph

Trial report in International urology and nephrology, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. An erratum has been issued. Cited by 10 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
10citing papers in PubMed
2.2field-weighted citation impact, top 12% 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

10 citing papers in PubMed, 15 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. UropathogenicAntibiotics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026
    Review
  2. Review
  3. Review
  4. Review
  5. Review
  6. Review
  7. Article
  8. Review
  9. Review
  10. Review
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

6 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.

S NestlerUrogate, Urological Practice, Bad Vilbel, Germany. sebastian-nestler@web.de.
C PeschelStrathmann GmbH & Co. KG, Hamburg, Germany.
A H HorstmannStrathmann GmbH & Co. KG, Hamburg, Germany.
W VahlensieckDepartment of Urology, Kurpark Klinik, Bad Nauheim, Germany.
W FabryTFP Laboratory Düsseldorf, Düsseldorf, Germany.
A NeisiusDepartment of Urology, Brüderkrankenhaus Trier, University of Mainz, Mainz, Germany.
Strathmann (Germany) · DEJohannes Gutenberg University Mainz · DEKerckhoff Klinik · DE

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

purposeTo evaluate efficacy and safety of vaccination with StroVac compared to placebo in patients with recurrent urinary tract infections (rUTI). MATERIAL AND

methodsWe performed a prospective, double-blinded, placebo-controlled study in patients with uncomplicated rUTI. Patients received three single intramuscular injections with StroVac every two weeks. Primary endpoint was the number of bacterial urinary tract infections (UTI) over 13.5 months after randomization and adjusted by the respective "baseline" value when comparing verum and placebo group. Secondary endpoints were the number of patients with non-recurrence, time to first recurrence, frequency of recurrences, and patients' self-assessment of quality of life using a validated questionnaire.

results376 patients were randomized to both groups between January 2012 and March 2015. Mean age was 44.4 years. Patients were mainly female (98.4%). In the StroVac group (n = 188), the number of UTIs was reduced from 5.5 to 1.2, in the placebo group (n = 188) from 5.4 to 1.3 (p = 0.63). In patients with ≥ 7 UTIs prior to study inclusion, StroVac was statistically significantly superior to placebo (p = 0.048). However, in all other secondary endpoints, no statistical differences between the two groups could be seen (all p > 0.3).

conclusionStroVac reduced the number of clinically relevant UTIs like in former studies but did not show statistically significant better results than the chosen placebo. Most likely, that was due to a, since confirmed, prophylactic effect of the chosen placebo itself. Therefore, placebo-controlled and double-blinded studies using a different ineffective placebo preparation are needed to determine the importance of StroVac in prophylaxis of rUTI.

Indexed as

Bacterial InfectionsUrinary Tract InfectionsAdultBacteriaBacterial VaccinesDouble-Blind MethodFemaleHumansMaleProspective StudiesQuality of LifeBacterial VaccinesStroVacNon-antibiotic prophylaxisRecurrent UTI (rUTI)Urinary tract infection (UTI)Vaccination

Identifiers

PMID36181584
PMCPMC9870822
OpenAlexW4298326587

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.