ReviewJAC-antimicrobial resistance2026
The evidence landscape for direct-from-urine antibiotic susceptibility testing (AST) for urinary tract infection (UTI): a scoping review.
Review in JAC-antimicrobial resistance, 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
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Antimicrobial susceptibility tests (AST) are vital to guide antibiotic selection to treat bacterial infections, including urinary tract infections (UTI). Current laboratory AST takes at least 2 days. Direct testing of urine samples could speed up testing, with rapid reporting aiding timely treatment. Method: A scoping review was conducted to identify studies assessing the accuracy of direct-from-urine AST, and map the breadth of evidence. Studies that measured overall categorical agreement (CA) compared to a reference method were selected, and the reported accuracy, the type of AST method and study methodology assessed. Results: In total, 33 studies were identified that met the inclusion criteria (1976-2024). These reported overall CA for direct-from-urine AST ranging from 78.7% to 100% compared to a reference method. These studies varied in the AST method used; in urine sample collection, origin and processing; in the antibiotics evaluated; in study design and data analysis. The most common AST method evaluated was direct-from-urine disc diffusion. Most studies reported accuracy only for samples containing a single Gram-negative organism. Conclusion: Although increasing numbers of studies report the accuracy of direct-from-urine AST, heterogeneity prevented systematic comparison of methods or detailed meta-analysis. Many studies reported overall accuracy >90% CA for urine samples containing a single Gram-negative organism across several direct-from-urine AST methods, offering potential time saving compared with current methods. However, as single organism samples represent only a subset of urines taken from UTI patients, additional studies-that include analysis of samples containing mixed cultures and Gram-positive isolates-are still required.
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.