Evidence map›Paper›PMID 40778073›Full record

ReviewFrontiers in urology2023

Tarnished gold-the "standard" urine culture: reassessing the characteristics of a criterion standard for detecting urinary microbes.

Linda Brubaker, Toby C Chai, Harry Horsley, Rajvinder Khasriya, Robert B Moreland, Alan J Wolfe

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Frontiers in urology, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 29 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
29citing papers in PubMed
–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

29 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Urobiome or Urinary Tract Infection: A Mysterious Dilemma.International urogynecology journal · 2026
    Article
  7. Article
  8. Review
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Review
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Review
  18. Article
  19. Review
  20. 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.

Linda BrubakerDepartment of Obstetrics, Gynecology, and Reproductive Sciences, Division of Female Pelvic Medicine and Reconstructive Surgery, University of California San Diego, La Jolla, CA, United States.
Toby C ChaiDepartment of Urology, Boston University School of Medicine and Boston Medical Center, Boston, MA, United States.
Harry HorsleyDepartment of Renal Medicine, Division of Medicine, University College London, London, United Kingdom.
Rajvinder KhasriyaEastman Dental Institute, Department of Microbial Diseases, University College London, London, United Kingdom.
Robert B MorelandDepartment of Microbiology and Immunology, Stritch School of Medicine, Loyola University Chicago, Maywood, IL, United States.
Alan J WolfeDepartment of Microbiology and Immunology, Stritch School of Medicine, Loyola University Chicago, Maywood, IL, United States.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Diagnosis and treatment of urinary tract infections (UTIs) remains stagnant. The presumption that a patient either has a UTI or does not (binary choice) is inappropriately simplistic. Laboratory diagnostic tests have not advanced for decades. The goal of UTI treatment has not been rigorously defined and may increase the prescription of potentially harmful, inappropriate antibiotics. Despite the high incidence of UTI diagnoses, the high cost of UTI treatment, and increasing concerns associated with antimicrobial resistance, the development of novel and more accurate UTI tests has not been considered a priority, in part due to the general perception that current UTI care is already sufficient. In this review, we discuss the importance of improving UTI diagnostic testing to improve treatment outcomes. We discuss the problems associated with UTI diagnosis. Urinary microbes are alive and exist in both healthy and symptomatic individuals-urine is not sterile. We specifically outline the limitations of standard urine culture methods used by clinical microbiology laboratories, explaining clearly why such methods cannot be considered to be the "gold standard," as standard culture methods underreport most of the urinary tract microbes, including some acknowledged and many emerging uropathogens. We do not recommend abandonment of this test, as no universally accepted substitute yet exists. However, we strongly encourage the development of new and improved diagnostic tests that can both improve outcomes and preserve antibiotic stewardship.

Indexed as

diagnosticsmicrobiomeurinary tract infectionurine cultureurobiomeuropathogen

Identifiers

PMID40778073
PMCPMC12327316

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.