Evidence map›Paper›PMID 40503430›Full record

ArticleTherapeutic advances in urology

Expanded PCR panel for uropathogen identification and treatment recommendations in urinary tract infections.

Lindsey Leech, Christopher Bigley, Marshall Chew, Ashley Crawford, JeanAnn Vawter, Manish P Patel

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Therapeutic advances in urology. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
3citing 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

3 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Observational
  3. Article
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

6 authors.

Lindsey LeechVikor Scientific, Charleston, SC, USA.
Christopher BigleyVikor Scientific, Charleston, SC, USA.
Marshall ChewVikor Scientific, Charleston, SC, USA.
Ashley CrawfordDepartment of Urology, Medical University of South Carolina, Charleston, SC, USA.
JeanAnn VawterDepartment of Urology, Medical University of South Carolina, Charleston, SC, USA.
Manish P PatelDepartment of Urology, Medical University of South Carolina, 40 Pinnacle Parkway, Suite 212 Elgin SC 29045, USA.ORCID https://orcid.org/0009-0001-9130-4979

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Background: Urinary tract infections (UTI) are common and costly, but standard urine culture (SUC) diagnostic tests have significant limitations. Emerging molecular techniques like multiplex polymerase chain reaction (PCR) offer rapid simultaneous detection of uropathogens and antimicrobial resistance (AMR) genes allowing timely targeted therapy. Objectives: To compare the performance of Urine-ID™ test, an expanded multiplex PCR panel designed to detect 26 uropathogens and 49 AMR markers against SUC for pathogen detection in individuals with suspected complicated UTI. Design and methods: A total of 56 urine specimens from individuals aged 50 and older, who exhibited UTI symptoms and failed previous therapy based on SUC results, were retrospectively analyzed using Urine-ID Results: Of the 56 suspected UTI cases, SUC failed to detect pathogens in 19.64% ( Conclusion: These results highlight the effectiveness of expanded real-time PCR panels for quickly and accurately identifying uropathogens, surpassing traditional SUC sensitivity. Adopting these advanced molecular techniques, particularly in suspected complicated UTI cases, improves diagnosis efficiency, leading to faster pathogen identification and treatment, ultimately reducing patient morbidity.

Indexed as

antimicrobial resistancediagnosticsPCR panelstandard urine cultureurinary tract infections

Identifiers

PMID40503430
PMCPMC12152380

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
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.