Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39775368›Full record

ArticleEuropean journal of clinical microbiology & infectious diseases : official publication of the European Society of Clinical Microbiology2025

Genome-based development and clinical evaluation of a customized LAMP panel to rapidly detect, quantify, and determine antibiotic sensitivity of Escherichia coli in native urine samples from urological patients.

Moritz Fritzenwanker, Marcel O Grabitz, Vera Negwer, Oliver Schwengers, Borros Arneth, Trinad Chakraborty, Can Imirzalioglu, Florian Wagenlehner

Abstract readEvaluation Study
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in European journal of clinical microbiology & infectious diseases : official publication of the European Society of Clinical Microbiology, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
2citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–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 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Deciphering the Implications ofPathogens (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026
    Review
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

8 authors.

Moritz Fritzenwanker *Institute of Medical Microbiology, Justus Liebig University Giessen, Giessen, Germany.
Marcel O Grabitz *Institute of Medical Microbiology, Justus Liebig University Giessen, Giessen, Germany.
Vera Negwer *Institute of Medical Microbiology, Justus Liebig University Giessen, Giessen, Germany.
Oliver SchwengersBioinformatics and Systems Biology, Justus Liebig University Giessen, Giessen, Germany.
Borros ArnethInstitute of Laboratory Medicine and Pathobiochemistry, Phillips University, Marburg, Germany.
Trinad ChakrabortyInstitute of Medical Microbiology, Justus Liebig University Giessen, Giessen, Germany.
Can Imirzalioglu *Institute of Medical Microbiology, Justus Liebig University Giessen, Giessen, Germany. can.imirzalioglu@mikrobio.med.uni-giessen.de.
Florian Wagenlehner *Clinic for Urology, Pediatric Urology and Andrology, Justus-Liebig-University, Giessen, Germany.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

purposeWe designed and tested a point of care test panel to detect E.coli and antibiotic susceptibility in urine samples from patients at the point of care in the urological department. The aim of this approach is to facilitate choosing an appropriate antibiotic for urinary tract infections (UTI) at first presentation in the context of increasing antibiotic resistance in uropathogens worldwide.

methodsWe analyzed 162 E.coli isolates from samples from a university urological department to determine phenotypic and genotypic resistance data. With this data we created customized LAMP (loop-mediated isothermal amplification) panels for a commercial machine with which to detect and possibly quantify E.coli and six antibiotic resistance determinants. In a second step we tested these panel(s) for diagnostic accuracy on 1596 urine samples and compared with routine microbiological culture.

resultsE.coli was detected with 95.4% sensitivity and 96.1% specificity. Dynamics of the LAMP amplification could be used to gauge bacterial loads in the samples. Antibiotic sensitivity was detected with good negative (sensitive) predictive values: ampicillin 92.8%, ampicillin/sulbactam 96.4%, cefuroxime 92.8%, cefotaxime 97.8%, trimethoprim/sulfamethoxazole 96.5%, ciprofloxacin 96.8%.

conclusionThe LAMP panel provided E.coli detection and sensitivity information within one hour and thus could principally guide initial antibiotic therapy upon patients presenting with UTI. The panel helps to select initial adequate antibiotic therapy as well as providing diagnostic stewardship. Follow up investigations will expand the test system to other uropathogens.

Indexed as

Anti-Bacterial AgentsEscherichia coliEscherichia coli InfectionsMolecular Diagnostic TechniquesNucleic Acid Amplification TechniquesUrinary Tract InfectionsDrug Resistance, BacterialFemaleHumansMaleMicrobial Sensitivity TestsSensitivity and SpecificityUrineAnti-Bacterial AgentsAntibiotic susceptibility testingAntimicrobial stewardshipFast microbiologyLoop-mediated isothermal amplificationPoint of care testingUrinary tract infections

Identifiers

PMID39775368
PMCPMC11880174

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.