Evidence map›Paper›PMID 36761839›Full record

ReviewBiomarker insights2023

What is the Diagnostic Accuracy of Novel Urine Biomarkers for Urinary Tract Infection?

George Edwards, Anna Seeley, Adam Carter, Maia Patrick Smith, Elizabeth LA Cross, Kathryn Hughes, Ann Van den Bruel, Martin J Llewelyn, Jan Y Verbakel, Gail Hayward

Open access · goldAbstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Biomarker insights, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 9 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
9citing papers in PubMed
3.4field-weighted citation impact, top 7% 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

9 citing papers in PubMed, 17 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. A cynomolgus monkeyInfection and immunity · 2024
    Article
  6. Review
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. 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

10 authors at 4 institutions in 2 countries.

George EdwardsNIHR Community Healthcare Medtech and IVD Cooperative, Nuffield Department of Primary Care Health Sciences, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-0048-4178
Anna SeeleyNuffield Department of Primary Care Health Sciences, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK.
Adam CarterNuffield Department of Primary Care Health Sciences, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK.
Maia Patrick SmithNuffield Department of Primary Care Health Sciences, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK.
Elizabeth LA CrossDepartment of Global Health and Infection, Brighton and Sussex Medical School, Falmer, UK.
Kathryn HughesPRIME Centre Wales, Division of Population Medicine, Cardiff University, Cardiff, UK.
Ann Van den BruelEPI-Centre, Academic Centre for General Practice, KU Leuven, Leuven, Belgium.
Martin J LlewelynDepartment of Global Health and Infection, Brighton and Sussex Medical School, Falmer, UK.
Jan Y VerbakelNIHR Community Healthcare Medtech and IVD Cooperative, Nuffield Department of Primary Care Health Sciences, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK.
Gail HaywardNIHR Community Healthcare Medtech and IVD Cooperative, Nuffield Department of Primary Care Health Sciences, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK.
University of Oxford · GBBrighton and Sussex Medical School · GBCardiff University · GBKU Leuven · BE

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Background: Urinary tract infection (UTI) affects half of women at least once in their lifetime. Current diagnosis involves urinary dipstick and urine culture, yet both methods have modest diagnostic accuracy, and cannot support decision-making in patient populations with high prevalence of asymptomatic bacteriuria, such as older adults. Detecting biomarkers of host response in the urine of hosts has the potential to improve diagnosis. Objectives: To synthesise the evidence of the diagnostic accuracy of novel biomarkers for UTI, and of their ability to differentiate UTI from asymptomatic bacteriuria. Design: A systematic review. Data Sources and Methods: We searched MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL and Web of Science for studies of novel biomarkers for the diagnosis of UTI. We excluded studies assessing biomarkers included in urine dipsticks as these have been well described previously. We included studies of adult patients (≥16 years) with a suspected or confirmed urinary tract infection using microscopy and culture as the reference standard. We excluded studies using clinical signs and symptoms, or urine dipstick only as a reference standard. Quality appraisal was performed using QUADAS-2. We summarised our data using point estimates and data accuracy statistics. Results: We included 37 studies on 4009 adults measuring 66 biomarkers. Study quality was limited by case-control design and study size; only 4 included studies had a prospective cohort design. IL-6 and IL-8 were the most studied biomarkers. We found plausible evidence to suggest that IL-8, IL-6, GRO-a, sTNF-1, sTNF-2 and MCR may benefit from more rigorous evaluation of their potential diagnostic value for UTI. Conclusions: There is insufficient evidence to recommend the use of any novel biomarker for UTI diagnosis at present. Further evaluation of the more promising candidates, is needed before they can be recommended for clinical use.

Indexed as

biomarkersinfection diagnosisSystematic reviewUTI

Identifiers

PMID36761839
PMCPMC9902898
OpenAlexW4319812199

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.