Evidence map›Paper›PMID 38893605›Full record

ReviewDiagnostics (Basel, Switzerland)2024

Laboratory Tests, Bacterial Resistance, and Treatment Options in Adult Patients Hospitalized with a Suspected Urinary Tract Infection.

Paul Froom, Zvi Shimoni

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland), 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
2citing 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

2 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. 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

2 authors.

Paul FroomClinical Utility Department, Sanz Medical Center, Laniado Hospital, Netanya 4244916, Israel.ORCID 0000-0001-5126-8590
Zvi ShimoniThe Adelson School of Medicine, Ariel University, Ariel 4070000, Israel.ORCID 0000-0001-7800-718X

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Patients treated for systemic urinary tract infections commonly have nonspecific presentations, and the specificity of the results of the urinalysis and urine cultures is low. In the following narrative review, we will describe the widespread misuse of urine testing, and consider how to limit testing, the disutility of urine cultures, and the use of antibiotics in hospitalized adult patients. Automated dipstick testing is more precise and sensitive than the microscopic urinalysis which will result in false negative test results if ordered to confirm a positive dipstick test result. There is evidence that canceling urine cultures if the dipstick is negative (negative leukocyte esterase, and nitrite) is safe and helps prevent the overuse of urine cultures. Because of the side effects of introducing a urine catheter, for patients who cannot provide a urine sample, empiric antibiotic treatment should be considered as an alternative to culturing the urine if a trial of withholding antibiotic therapy is not an option. Treatment options that will decrease both narrower and wider spectrum antibiotic use include a period of watching and waiting before antibiotic therapy and empiric treatment with antibiotics that have resistance rates > 10%. Further studies are warranted to show the option that maximizes patient comfort and safety.

Indexed as

bacterial resistanceinternal medicinelaboratory teststreatment optionsurinary tract infection

Identifiers

PMID38893605
PMCPMC11172264

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.