ArticleInfectious disease reports2024
Radiological Explorations of Patients with Upper or Febrile Urinary Tract Infection.
Article in Infectious disease reports, 2024. 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.
- Use of Artificial Intelligence Methods for Improved Diagnosis of Urinary Tract Infections and Urinary Stone Disease.Journal of clinical medicine · 2025Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Recent European Association of Urology (EAU) guidelines and a clinical prediction rule developed by Van Nieuwkoop et al. suggest simple criteria for performing radiological imaging for patients with a febrile urinary tract infection (UTI). We analysed the records of patients with a UTI from four hospitals in Switzerland. Of 107 UTI patients, 58% underwent imaging and 69% (95%CI: 59-77%) and 64% (95%CI: 54-73%) of them were adequately managed according to Van Nieuwkoop's clinical rule and EAU guidelines, respectively. However, only 47% (95%CI: 33-61%) and 57% (95%CI: 44-69%) of the imaging performed would have been recommended according to their respective rules. Clinically significant imaging findings were associated with a history of urolithiasis (OR = 11.8; 95%CI: 3.0-46.5), gross haematuria (OR = 5.9; 95%CI: 1.6-22.1) and known urogenital anomalies (OR = 5.7; 95%CI: 1.8-18.2). Moreover, six of 16 (38%) patients with a clinically relevant abnormality displayed none of the criteria requiring imaging according to Van Nieuwkoop's rule or EAU guidelines. Thus, adherence to imaging guidelines was suboptimal, especially when imaging was not recommended. However, additional factors associated with clinically significant findings suggest the need for a new, efficient clinical prediction rule.
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.