ArticleInfection2026
Rapid screening of urinary tract infections: quantitative flow cytometry versus dipstick testing in a hospital cohort.
Article in Infection, 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
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeWe compared urine dipstick testing (DS) with quantitative flow cytometry (FC) and evaluated a diagnostic algorithm to optimise urinary tract infection (UTI) screening.
methodsIn this single-centre study, 5,124 consecutive urine samples were analysed in parallel using DS and FC. Semi-quantitative urine culture was performed for samples with bacterial count (BC) ≥ 100/µL; samples below this threshold were classified as non-UTI without culture confirmation.
resultsA BC ≥ 100/µL was observed in 2,281 samples (44.5%); among these, 1,368 were culture-confirmed as UTI, corresponding to 26.7% of all samples. FC outperformed DS, demonstrating higher sensitivity and specificity while reducing the need for follow-up cultures by 18%. The probability of UTI increased with rising BC and exceeded 90% at BC values ≥ 3,000/µL, particularly in samples without evidence of contamination. BC was significantly higher in Gram-negative than in Gram-positive infections (median 19,610 vs. 679/µL). Sample contamination was associated with elevated squamous cell counts (SQC ≥ 10/µL).
conclusionFC with direct bacterial detection demonstrates superior performance compared with DS for both ruling in and ruling out UTIs. Quantitative FC parameters enable early estimation of UTI probability and sample contamination prior to culture results, supporting diagnostic stewardship and enabling earlier targeted clinical decision-making.
Indexed as
Identifiers
42579066What 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.