ArticleBJGP open2025
Urinary tract infection in outpatients in Germany: a cross-sectional study of diagnostics and susceptibility testing in medical laboratories.
Article in BJGP open, 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
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundUrinary tract infections (UTIs) are common, representing a frequent cause of antibiotic prescription in primary care worldwide. Selection of antibiotics for antimicrobial susceptibility testing and the reporting of test results by laboratories can directly impact antibiotic prescribing and guideline adherence.
aimTo assess the current practice of susceptibility testing by laboratories for outpatient UTIs in Germany. DESIGN &
settingA cross-sectional study was conducted including all laboratories identified by searching for specialists in laboratory medicine and microbiology on the websites of the 17 German associations of statutory health insurance physicians.
methodBetween January and April 2024, a survey using a standardised questionnaire was conducted across identified laboratories.
resultsOf the 396 laboratories identified, 65.2% (
conclusionLaboratories should test and report as many first-line antibiotics as possible. Further, a more detailed and standardised transfer of clinical information to laboratories could enhance the quality of antibiotic prescribing.
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.