Observational studyPrimary health care research & development2022
Diagnosis of acute cystitis in primary care: symptom-based versus urinalysis-based diagnosis.
Observational study in Primary health care research & development, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed, 5 citations in OpenAlex.
- Healthcare providers' perspectives on collaboration of care for acute cystitis in women and the role of the community pharmacy: A qualitative study.Exploratory research in clinical and social pharmacy · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors at 4 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
aimThis study aimed to provide insight into the congruity of acute cystitis (AC) diagnosis in women, measured both by the Acute Cystitis Symptom Score (ACSS) questionnaire and urine test(s).
backgroundThe ACSS questionnaire was developed as a self-administering tool for assessing urinary symptoms, quality of life (QoL) and treatment outcomes in healthy, nonpregnant female patients.
methodsThis prospective observational cohort study compared AC diagnosis based on the questionnaire with a GP diagnosis based on dipstick/dipslide test(s). ACSS questionnaire form A (typical and differential symptoms, QoL and relevant conditions) was filled in by the patient group, women suspected for AC visiting a GP practice with a urine sample, and the reference group, women visiting a community pharmacy for any medication. Analyses were performed assuming that the GP diagnosis based on urine test(s) was correct. Divergent result(s) of urine test(s) and ACSS questionnaire were analysed for scores of all individual questionnaire domains. Statistical analyses included descriptive statistics and the positive predictive value (PPV) and the negative predictive value (NPV) of the ACSS questionnaire and the urine test(s).
findingsIn the patient group, 59 women were included, 38 of whom a GP positively diagnosed for AC. The reference group included 70 women. The PPV of the ACSS questionnaire was 77.3%, and the NPV was 73.3%. Analysis of patient data for divergent results showed that differential symptoms, QoL and relevant conditions explained false-positive and false-negative results. Revised results (most probable diagnosis) based on this analysis showed a PPV and NPV of 88.6% and 73.3% for the ACSS questionnaire and 100% and 76.2% for the urine test(s). For use in primary care, a reduction in false-positive and false-negative results can be achieved by including scores for differential symptoms, QoL and relevant conditions, alongside a total typical symptoms score of 6 or higher.
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.