ArticleTranslational andrology and urology2025
Cost benefit micro-analysis of performing urine cultures as a mean to reduce post-flexible cystoscopy urosepsis: a comparative study between two centres.
Article in Translational andrology and urology, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: In Australia, flexible cystoscopy is a key diagnostic tool in urology, employed to manage various conditions. However, it carries risks like urinary tract infections and urosepsis, which lead to significant healthcare expenses. This study evaluates the cost-effectiveness of pre-procedure urine cultures to prevent post-cystoscopy urosepsis. Methods: A retrospective analysis of data from regional Toowoomba Base Hospital and metropolitan Gold Coast University Hospital was conducted to assess the efficacy of urine cultures in reducing urosepsis following flexible cystoscopy. The study reviewed patient records, analysing both the incidence of post-procedure urosepsis and the associated economic impact. Results: The incidence of post-procedure urosepsis was found to be exceptionally low at 0.03%. Comparative analysis showed no significant reduction in urosepsis rates with the use of pre-procedure urine cultures (P=0.93). The financial analysis highlighted that the regional centre, which conducted urine cultures, incurred costs $ 26.14 per patient greater compared to the metropolitan centre that did not perform these cultures. Conclusions: The study indicates that the low incidence of urosepsis does not justify the routine use of pre-operative urine cultures, given the substantial costs involved. These findings support current guidelines that do not recommend routine pre-procedure cultures for cystoscopy due to lack of evidence of benefit.
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.