Evidence map›Paper›PMID 41608002›Full record

ArticleCureus2025

Renal Pelvis Urine Sampling for Microbiology in Patients Undergoing Ureteric Stent Insertion for Infected Obstructed Kidneys: A Departmental Practice Review for Compliance With Standard Care.

Muhammad Arshad Irshad Khalil, Rory Brennan, Hazel E Smith

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Cureus, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing 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

1 citing paper in PubMed.

  1. 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

3 authors.

Muhammad Arshad Irshad KhalilUrology, National Health Service (NHS) Education for Scotland, Edinburgh, GBR.
Rory BrennanUrology, Western General Hospital, Edinburgh, GBR.
Hazel E SmithUrology, Western General Hospital, Edinburgh, GBR.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Introduction Ureteric stent insertion allows the collection of renal pelvic urine (RPU) for microbiology, aiding targeted antibiotic use in infected obstructed kidneys (IOK). This retrospective audit reviewed compliance with European Association of Urology standards for RPU sampling, assessed whether urine dipstick tests and bladder urine samples (BUS) were obtained at initial evaluation, and compared microbiology results from BUS, RPU, and blood samples. Methods This retrospective audit reviewed patients with sepsis from suspected IOK who received emergency ureteric stents between October 1, 2024 and February 28, 2025. Microbiological outcomes were evaluated for concordance, and kappa analysis was used to measure agreement. Results Among the 51 patients undergoing ureteric stent insertion for IOK, fever was the main indication and obstructing ureteric stones were the most common cause of sepsis. Three quarters of patients lacked a dipstick urine test, and one-fifth had no BUS sent for microbiology at presentation. RPU sampling was not done in 41% of cases during stent insertion. Concordance rates for microbiology results were 63% (RPU vs BUS), 67% (RPU vs blood), and 65% (BUS vs blood). Kappa analysis found fair agreement between RPU and blood, poor agreement between RPU and BUS, and the lowest agreement between BUS and blood microbiology results. Conclusion The audit highlights a need to improve compliance with obtaining RPU samples for microbiology, which is vital for managing IOK-driven sepsis. Conducting larger audits in this area can offer more insights into microbial growth and antimicrobial sensitivity patterns.

Indexed as

infected obstructed kidneypercutaneous nephrostomyrenal pelvic urineureteric stent insertionurosepsis

Identifiers

PMID41608002
PMCPMC12836438

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.