Evidence map›Paper›PMID 38136723›Full record

ArticleAntibiotics (Basel, Switzerland)2023

Evaluation of the Diagnosis and Antibiotic Prescription Pattern in Patients Hospitalized with Urinary Tract Infections: Single-Center Study from a University-Affiliated Hospital.

Adina Fésüs, Mária Matuz, Erika Papfalvi, Helga Hambalek, Roxána Ruzsa, Bence Tánczos, Ildikó Bácskay, István Lekli, Árpád Illés, Ria Benkő

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Antibiotics (Basel, Switzerland), 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
4citing papers in PubMed
–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

4 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. 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

10 authors.

Adina FésüsDepartment of Pharmacology, Faculty of Pharmacy, University of Debrecen, H-4032 Debrecen, Hungary.ORCID 0000-0002-6351-7715
Mária MatuzClinical Pharmacy Department, Faculty of Pharmacy, University of Szeged, H-6725 Szeged, Hungary.
Erika PapfalviClinical Pharmacy Department, Faculty of Pharmacy, University of Szeged, H-6725 Szeged, Hungary.
Helga HambalekClinical Pharmacy Department, Faculty of Pharmacy, University of Szeged, H-6725 Szeged, Hungary.
Roxána RuzsaClinical Pharmacy Department, Faculty of Pharmacy, University of Szeged, H-6725 Szeged, Hungary.
Bence TánczosDepartment of Pharmacology, Faculty of Pharmacy, University of Debrecen, H-4032 Debrecen, Hungary.
Ildikó BácskayDepartment of Pharmaceutical Technology, Faculty of Pharmacy, University of Debrecen, H-4032 Debrecen, Hungary.ORCID 0000-0001-8663-2890
István LekliDepartment of Pharmacology, Faculty of Pharmacy, University of Debrecen, H-4032 Debrecen, Hungary.ORCID 0000-0002-0992-4176
Árpád IllésDepartment of Internal Medicine, Faculty of Medicine, University of Debrecen, H-4032 Debrecen, Hungary.
Ria BenkőClinical Pharmacy Department, Faculty of Pharmacy, University of Szeged, H-6725 Szeged, Hungary.ORCID 0000-0002-8009-8962

Funding

European Union and the European Regional Development Fund GINOP-2.3.4-15-2020-00008Ministry of Innovation and Technology of Hungary from the National Research, Development and Innovation Fund TKP2021-EGA-18, NKFIA TKP2021-EGA-32, and NKFI-143360
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

UTIs (urinary tract infections) are common bacterial infections with a non-negligible hospitalization rate. The diagnosis of UTIs remains a challenge for prescribers and a common source of misdiagnosis. This retrospective observational study aimed to evaluate whether recorded diagnosis by clinicians and empirical antibiotic therapy met the EAU (European Association of Urology) guideline in patients hospitalized with UTI. The study was conducted at an internal medicine unit of a tertiary care medical center in Hungary. The diagnosis was assessed based on clinical presentation, physical examination, and laboratory (including microbiological) results, considering all the potential risk factors. Diagnosis was considered misdiagnosis when not confirmed by clinical presentation or clinical signs and symptoms. Evaluation of empirical antibiotic therapy was performed only for confirmed UTIs. Empirical treatment was considered guideline-adherent when complying with the relevant recommendations. Out of 185 patients, 41.6% failed to meet EAU-based UTI diagnosis criteria, of which 27.6% were misdiagnosed and 14.1% were ABU (asymptomatic bacteriuria). The diagnosis of urosepsis recorded at admission (9.7%, 18/185) was not confirmed either by clinical or microbiological tests in five (5/18) cases. The initial empirical therapies for UTI showed a relatively low rate (45.4%) of guideline adherence regarding agent selection. The most common guideline-non-adherent therapies were combinations with metronidazole (16.7%). Dosage appropriateness assessments showed a guideline adherence rate of 36.1%, and underdosing due to high body weight was common (9.3%). Overall (agent, route of administration, dose, duration) guideline adherence was found to be substantially low (10.2%). We found a relatively high rate of misdiagnosed UTIs. Written protocols on the ward may be crucial in reducing misdiagnosis and in optimizing antibiotic use.

Indexed as

diagnosisempirical antibiotic therapyguideline adherencemisdiagnosisurinary tract infections

Identifiers

PMID38136723
PMCPMC10741002

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.