ArticleProceedings (Baylor University. Medical Center)2025
Cost analysis of urine testing for hospitalized patients in the emergency department.
Article in Proceedings (Baylor University. Medical Center), 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.
- The economic implications of inappropriate testing.Proceedings (Baylor University. Medical Center) · 2025Article
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
Introduction: Urinary tract infections (UTIs) are commonly diagnosed in the emergency department (ED). However, an accurate diagnosis requires an appropriate clinical presentation. The objective of this retrospective review of patients admitted to the hospital via the ED was to determine the extent of urinary testing for infection despite no appropriate medical criteria and the associated economic costs. Methods: Adult patients admitted to an academic medical center via the ED in two 1-week periods were reviewed. The medical records were manually reviewed to determine whether the urine was tested for infection and whether this was medically necessary based on generally accepted clinical criteria. The economic cost of the unnecessary testing was determined based on direct laboratory processing costs, staffing costs associated with sample acquisition and processing, and antimicrobials prescribed. Results: There were 401 admissions to the hospital via the ED in the two 1-week timeframes, and 212 (52.87%) had urinalyses on admission. Among them, 133 (62.74%) had no medical necessity for the testing. The total annual cost was extrapolated to a direct cost of $8,490.68 and a total cost of $49,701.01. Conclusions: These results demonstrate the projected annual cost of inappropriate urine testing in patients admitted through the ED. Data such as these may be of value to hospital systems in the design or creation of order sets to focus on appropriate testing. These data would also be helpful for diagnostic stewardship programs to help rein in the ever-increasing cost of healthcare.
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.