SynthesisHealth technology assessment (Winchester, England)2024
Point-of-care tests for urinary tract infections to reduce antimicrobial resistance: a systematic review and conceptual economic model.
Synthesis in Health technology assessment (Winchester, England), 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.
- The evidence landscape for direct-from-urine antibiotic susceptibility testing (AST) for urinary tract infection (UTI): a scoping review.JAC-antimicrobial resistance · 2026Review
- A Review on the Current and Future State of Urinary Tract Infection Diagnostics.International journal of molecular sciences · 2025Review
- From Preliminary Urinalysis to Decision Support: Machine Learning for UTI Prediction in Real-World Laboratory Data.Journal of personalized medicine · 2025Article
- Next generation sequencing as a panacea for antibiotic susceptibility testing: yea or nay?Frontiers in public health · 2025Article
- Exploring Barriers and Facilitators to Patients and Members of the Public Contributing to Rapid Health Technology Assessments for NICE: A Qualitative Study.Health expectations : an international journal of public participation in health care and health policy · 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
11 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Urinary tract infections are diagnosed by general practitioners based on symptoms, dipstick tests in some and laboratory urine culture. Patients may be given inappropriate antibiotics. Point-of-care tests can diagnose urinary tract infection in near-patient settings quicker than standard culture. Some can identify the causative pathogen or antimicrobial sensitivity. Objective: To assess whether point-of-care tests for people with suspected urinary tract infection have the potential to be clinically effective and cost-effective to the NHS. Design: Systematic review and conceptual economic model. Results: Two randomised controlled trials evaluated Flexicult Human (one against standard care; one against ID Flexicult). One trial found no evidence of a difference between groups in concordant antibiotic use (odds ratio 0.84, 95% confidence interval 0.58 to 1.20), and the other found no difference in appropriate antibiotic prescribing (odds ratio 1.44, 95% confidence interval 1.03 to 1.99). Compared with standard care, Flexicult was associated with reduced antibiotic prescribing at initial consultation (odds ratio 0.56, 95% confidence interval 0.35 to 0.88). No difference was found for other outcomes. Sixteen studies reported test accuracy data. Most were rated as being at unclear or high risk of bias. We identified data on three rapid tests (results < 40 minutes). Lodestar DX ( Conclusion and future work: More research is required to determine whether point-of-care tests for urinary tract infection have the potential to be clinically effective and cost-effective to the NHS. Rapid tests such as Astrego PA-100 system and Lodestar DX appear promising, but data are very limited. Study registration: This study is registered as PROSPERO CRD42022383889. Funding: This award was funded by the National Institute for Health and Care Research (NIHR) Evidence Synthesis programme (NIHR award ref: NIHR135710) and is published in full in
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.