ArticleBJGP open2024
GPs' experience with diagnosis and treatment guidelines for lower UTI in men: a qualitative interview.
Article in BJGP open, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled 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.
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
5 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 3 citations in OpenAlex.
- Primary care practitioners' experiences managing urinary tract infections: a qualitative evidence synthesis.The British journal of general practice : the journal of the Royal College of General Practitioners · 2026Pooled it
- Experiences among men with localised urinary tract infection in primary care: a qualitative study.Scandinavian journal of primary health care · 2026Article
- Urinary tract infection in adults: gaps in current guidelines - opinions from an international multidisciplinary panel and relevance to clinical practice.BMC proceedings · 2025Article
- Bacterial growth and antimicrobial resistance in urinaryJAC-antimicrobial resistance · 2025Article
- 'Male cystitis does not exist': A qualitative study of general practitioners' experiences and management of male urinary tract infections in France.The European journal of general practice · 2024Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors at 2 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThe incidence of lower urinary tract infection (LUTI) in men visiting primary health care (PHC) is low. Hence, GPs do not diagnose and treat men with LUTI very often. Previous studies have shown that adherence to treatment guidelines regarding LUTI in men is low. There is limited knowledge concerning why guidelines are not adhered to.
aimTo gain knowledge on GPs' experiences and concerns when treating men with LUTI, including their use of clinical guidelines. Furthermore, this study aimed to explore GPs' knowledge and concern regarding antibiotic resistance. DESIGN &
settingA qualitative study based on semi-structured interviews with GPs was performed.
method15 GPs from seven PHC centres (PHCC) in southern Sweden were interviewed. The interviews were conducted from September 2022 to March 2023. All interviews were audio recorded and transcribed verbatim. A thematic analysis was performed.
resultsGPs had limited experience with and felt less certainty when diagnosing male LUTI. Extended examinations could partially relieve this feeling. GPs were well informed about the Swedish treatment guidelines for LUTI in men and felt safe to treat their patients according to the guidelines. However, GPs also acknowledged that guidelines do not cover all situations and need to be individualised.
conclusionMany GPs feel insecure when diagnosing male LUTI. The relatively low prevalence of this condition in PHC could contribute to this feeling. Clear and instructive guidelines regarding both the diagnostic process and adequate antibiotic choices are important to maintain good quality in the management of LUTI in men.
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.