ArticlemedRxiv : the preprint server for health sciences2024
Reassessing the management of uncomplicated urinary tract infection: A retrospective analysis using machine learning causal inference.
Article in medRxiv : the preprint server for health sciences, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
- Updated by
Authors and funding
8 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Background: Uncomplicated urinary tract infection (UTI) is a common indication for outpatient antimicrobial therapy. National guidelines for the management of uncomplicated UTI were published by the Infectious Diseases Society of America in 2011, however it is not fully known the extent to which they align with current practices, patient diversity, and pathogen biology, all of which have evolved significantly in the time since their publication. Objective: We aimed to re-evaluate efficacy and adverse events for first-line antibiotics (nitrofurantoin, and trimethoprim-sulfamethoxazole), versus second-line antibiotics (fluoroquinolones) and versus alternative agents (oral β-lactams) for uncomplicated UTI in contemporary clinical practice by applying machine learning algorithms to a large claims database formatted into the Observational Medical Outcomes Partnership (OMOP) common data model. Outcomes: Our primary outcome was a composite endpoint for treatment failure, defined as outpatient or inpatient re-visit within 30 days for UTI, pyelonephritis or sepsis. Secondary outcomes were the risk of 4 common antibiotic-associated adverse events: gastrointestinal symptoms, rash, kidney injury and Statistical methods: We adjusted for covariate-dependent censoring and treatment indication using a broad set of domain-expert derived features. Sensitivity analyses were conducted using OMOP-learn, an automated feature engineering package for OMOP datasets. Results: Our study included 57,585 episodes of UTI from 49,037 patients. First-line antibiotics were prescribed in 35,018 (61%) episodes, second-line antibiotics were prescribed in 21,140 (37%) episodes and alternative antibiotics were prescribed in 1,427 (2%) episodes. After adjustment, patients receiving first-line therapies had an absolute risk difference of -2.1% [95% CI -2.9% to -1.6%] for having a revisit for UTI within 30 days of diagnosis relative to second-line antibiotics. First-line therapies had an absolute risk difference of -6.6% [95% CI -9.4% to -3.8%] for 30-day revisit compared to alternative β-lactam antibiotics. Differences in adverse events were clinically similar between first and second line agents, but lower for first-line agents relative to alternative antibiotics (-3.5% [95% CI -5.9% to -1.2%]). Results were similar for models built with OMOPlearn. Conclusion: Our study provides support for the continued use of first-line antibiotics for the management of uncomplicated UTI. Our results also provide proof-of-principle that automated feature extraction methods for OMOP formatted data can emulate manually curated models, thereby promoting reproducibility and generalizability.
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.