ArticleBMC medical informatics and decision making2026
Automated algorithm in catheter-associated urinary tract infection identification using digital health records: validity and barriers in implementation into clinical practice.
Article in BMC medical informatics and decision making, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveThis study aims to evaluate the accuracy of an automated algorithm designed to identify catheter-associated urinary tract infections (CAUTIs) using electronic health records from a hospital. We assess the algorithm's effectiveness as a clinical decision support tool by analyzing its ability to accurately identify CAUTIs based on predefined clinical parameters. MATERIALS AND
methodsWe conducted a retrospective analysis of all patients hospitalized in the acute internal medicine wards of the Cantonal Hospital of Baden between November 2022 and October 2024. Automated algorithm identifies potential CAUTI cases based on standard centers for disease control (CDC) criteria. The automated algorithm identified patients meeting these criteria as potential cases and the number of CAUTIs is visualized in a dash board. All records were manually reviewed and inconsistencies validated by an infection specialist. Sensitivity, specificity, area under the receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve (AUC), likelihood ratios (LR) and 95% confidence intervals were calculated to assess performance.
resultsBetween November 2022 and October 2024, a cohort of 1424 patients with indwelling catheters was assessed, resulting in the identification of 11 manually diagnosed CAUTIs. The automated algorithm identified 6 of these cases, yielding 6 true positives (TP), 1,385 true negatives (TN), 28 false positives (FP), and 5 false negatives (FN). The algorithm demonstrated a sensitivity of 55% (95% CI: 27.3% - 81.8%) and a specificity of 98% (95% CI: 97.3% - 98.7%), positive likelihood ratio (LR+) of 27.3 and a negative likelihood ratio (LR-) of 0.5. AUC of 0.76 (95% CI: 0.73-0.80) with P-value of 0.0001.
conclusionIn this validation study, the automated algorithm demonstrated high specificity (98%) but limited sensitivity (55%) for the detection of CAUTIs. While a positive algorithm result was strongly associated with true infection, nearly half of confirmed CAUTI cases were not identified. Therefore, the algorithm may support surveillance by prioritizing cases for review; however, due to its limited sensitivity, it cannot reliably exclude non-cases and should not replace manual case adjudication. The primary reasons for missed cases were gaps in electronic health record (EHR) documentation. In hospitals with comprehensive EHR use across all departments, improved sensitivity is expected.
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.