Observational studyPloS one2025
Escherichia coli antimicrobial resistance in acute urinary tract infection lower than reported in Dutch national surveillance database.
Observational study in PloS one, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.
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
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- When Empiric Therapy Fails: Clinical and Economic Consequences in uUTIs Among US Women.Microorganisms · 2026Article
- Comparative Analysis of Antimicrobial Resistance in Male Uropathogens Before and After the COVID-19 Pandemic: A Single-Center Study from Romania.Medicina (Kaunas, Lithuania) · 2026Article
- A Cross-Sectional Analysis of Clinical and Biological Characteristics of Inpatients with Complicated Acute Pyelonephritis.Antibiotics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Article
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
backgroundGeneral practice patients with an acute urinary tract infection are usually treated empirically. Urine is only cultured if initial therapy fails. This study aimed to assess whether resistance rates of Escherichia coli (E. coli) from initial urine samples differ from those observed after treatment failure, and whether current surveillance data used for treatment guidelines may overestimate resistance in first-line care.
methodsA prospective observational study was conducted from October 2022 to June 2024 at Isala Hospital in Zwolle, the Netherlands, involving patients from two general practices. Patients with suspected acute UTI were included, excluding those with indwelling catheters. Initial urine samples were cultured, and resistance rates for all E. coli strains isolated were compared with data from the Dutch national AMR database ISIS-AR and regional data. Treatment success or failure was evaluated by recording the prescribed antibiotics and follow-up visits within 28 days.
resultsA total of 366 urine samples from 272 patients were analyzed. E. coli was the most common pathogen (82.2%). Resistance rates for E. coli were lower than those reported in national and regional datasets. Empirical treatment success rates were 95% for nitrofurantoin, 90% for fosfomycin, 92% for ciprofloxacin, and 100% for trimethoprim. Repeat cultures were performed in 19 cases due to persistent symptoms.
conclusionThe study confirms that the Dutch national guideline for empirical UTI treatment in general practice is effective. However, periodic reviews of resistance rates for common uropathogens are recommended to ensure continued guideline validity and promote responsible antibiotic use.
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.