ArticleScientific reports2024
Diagnostic validation study of rapid urinary tract infection diagnosis kit at peripheral health facilities of West Bengal, India.
Article in Scientific reports, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.
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
2 citing papers in PubMed, 6 citations in OpenAlex.
- XAI-driven CatBoost multi-layer perceptron neural network for analyzing breast cancer.Scientific reports · 2024Article
- Innovative Biosensor Technologies in the Diagnosis of Urinary Tract Infections: A Comprehensive Literature Review.Indian journal of microbiology · 2024Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Patients reporting to the outpatient departments of peripheral health care settings in India with symptoms of urinary tract infection (UTI) receive one or the other antibiotic before culture confirmation and out of the total culture confirmed UTI cases, in less than one third cases the prescribed antibiotics matches to the antibiotic sensitivity test result. Hence, in this study, an indigenous point-of-care (POCT) rapid diagnostic kit (Rapidogram) for UTI was validated against conventional urine culture and sensitivity to understand its possible applicability at peripheral health care settings. This cross-sectional study was conducted during November 2021 to June 2022 in OPDs of two peripheral hospitals. A sample size of 300 was calculated using prevalence of urinary tract infection (UTI) as 33% for sensitivity and specificity using Buderer's formula. Urine specimens were collected following standard aseptic procedures from the recruited suspected UTI cases and transferred to laboratory maintaining the cold chain. The validation work up was done in two sections: lab validation and field validation. Out of 300 urine samples, 29 were found positive for the growth of UTI pathogen by both methods and 267 were found negative by both methods. Thus, the kit shows very high specificity (99.6%; 97.9-99.9%) and considerably high sensitivity (90.6%; 74.9-98.0%). We also observed higher PPV, NPV, test accuracy (> 96%). Diagnostic Odds Ratio and Youden index were respectively 2581 and 0.89. Clinical data showed that 44% of the suspected UTI cases were prescribed at least one antibiotic before urine test. Mostly they received Norfloxacin whereas the mostly identified organism E.coli was sensitive to Nitrofurantoin. In the context of absence of microbiology facility at peripheral setting and rampant empirical use of antibiotics in UTI, this highly specific and sensitive POCT for UTI may be used as it not only identifies the organism, also shows the antibiotic sensitivity pattern.
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.