ArticleResearch and reports in urology2024
The Importance of Diagnostics in the Treatment of Urinary Tract Infections in the United Kingdom.
Article in Research and reports in urology, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 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
5 citing papers in PubMed.
- Prevalence of antimicrobial resistance in acute community-acquired urinary tract infections in Sub-Saharan Africa: a systematic review.JAC-antimicrobial resistance · 2026Review
- A rapid ionic liquid-based DNA extraction method for molecular diagnostics of urinary tract infections.Microbiology spectrum · 2026Article
- Accuracy of rapid microcapillary direct antibiotic susceptibility testing for urine samples collected with bacteriostatic boric acid from patients with suspected urinary tract infection.JAC-antimicrobial resistance · 2026Article
- Solid Medium Droplet Microarray for Miniaturized Antimicrobial Susceptibility Test.Small science · 2025Article
- Urological Manifestation of Mpox Virus: A Scoping Review.Research and reports in urology · 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
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Current diagnosis of urinary tract infections (UTIs) in the UK initially relies on self-reported patient symptoms with no point-of-care test robust enough to accurately identify the causative pathogen and inform on antibiotic susceptibility. In serious UTI cases, standard urine culture is regarded as the gold standard for diagnosis and involves direct isolation, culture and antibiotic susceptibility testing of pathogens. These methods are not suitable in initial UTI diagnosis and treatment because of the time taken to conduct these analyses (≥3 days). Inaccurate and slow diagnostics can lead to unnecessary or incorrect antibiotic prescribing, which can lead to increased antimicrobial resistance and poorer patient outcomes. Novel point-of-care testing devices are urgently needed to improve the diagnostics of UTIs. In this article, we highlight novel point-of-care tests which are in development that can detect UTI-causing pathogens rapidly and accurately. These devices require additional studies to prove their clinical utilities. Adoption of these technologies can empower general practitioners (GPs) and pharmacists in prescribing decisions and improve antimicrobial stewardship.
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.