Evidence map›Paper›PMID 36632418›Full record

ArticleOpen forum infectious diseases2023

Can Electronic Clinical Decision Support Systems Improve the Diagnosis of Urinary Tract Infections? A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.

Leila S Hojat, Elie A Saade, Adrian V Hernandez, Curtis J Donskey, Abhishek Deshpande

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Open forum infectious diseases, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
7citing papers in PubMed, 1 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

7 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Review
  3. Observational
  4. A pilot intervention to improve the management of urinary tract infections in outpatient settings.Antimicrobial stewardship & healthcare epidemiology : ASHE · 2025
    Article
  5. Article
  6. Clinical decision support menu for reducing unnecessary urine cultures.Antimicrobial stewardship & healthcare epidemiology : ASHE · 2024
    Article
  7. 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

5 authors.

Leila S HojatDepartment of Medicine, Division of Infectious Diseases, Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, Ohio, USA.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-4364-8141
Elie A SaadeDepartment of Medicine, Division of Infectious Diseases, Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, Ohio, USA.
Adrian V HernandezHealth Outcomes, Policy, and Evidence Synthesis (HOPES) Group, Department of Pharmacy Practice, University of Connecticut School of Pharmacy, Storrs, Connecticut, USA.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-9999-4003
Curtis J DonskeyDepartment of Medicine, Division of Infectious Diseases, Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, Ohio, USA.
Abhishek DeshpandeCenter for Value Based Care Research, Cleveland Clinic Community Care, Cleveland Clinic, Cleveland, Ohio, USA.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-5522-2995

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Background: Urinary tract infection (UTI) is a commonly misdiagnosed infectious syndrome. Diagnostic stewardship interventions can reduce rates of asymptomatic bacteriuria treatment but are often labor intensive, and thus an automated means of reducing unnecessary urine testing is preferred. In this systematic review and meta-analysis, we sought to identify studies describing interventions utilizing clinical decision support (CDS) to optimize UTI diagnosis and to characterize the effectiveness of these interventions. Methods: We conducted a comprehensive electronic search and manual reference list review for peer-reviewed articles published before July 2, 2021. Publications describing an intervention intending to enhance UTI diagnosis via CDS were included. The primary outcome was urine culture test rate. Results: The electronic search identified 5013 studies for screening. After screening and full-text review, 9 studies met criteria for inclusion, and a manual reference list review identified 5 additional studies, yielding a total of 14 studies included in the systematic review. The most common CDS intervention was urinalysis with reflex to urine culture based on prespecified urinalysis parameters. All 9 studies that provided statistical comparisons reported a decreased urine culture rate postintervention, 8 of which were statistically significant. A meta-analysis including 4 studies identified a pooled urine culture incidence rate ratio of 0.56 (95% confidence interval, .52-.60) favoring the postintervention versus preintervention group. Conclusions: In this systematic review and meta-analysis, CDS appeared to be effective in decreasing urine culture rates. Prospective trials are needed to confirm these findings and to evaluate their impact on antimicrobial prescribing, patient-relevant outcomes, and potential adverse effects.

Indexed as

decision supportdiagnostic stewardshipelectronic health recordurinary tract infectionurine culture

Identifiers

PMID36632418
PMCPMC9830539

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.