ArticleCurrent issues in molecular biology2026
Species-Level Reconfiguration and Retrospective Bridging Assessment of a Multiplex PCR Panel for Complicated and Recurrent Urinary Tract Infections.
Article in Current issues in molecular biology, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT06996301 (Clinical Validity and Utility of PCR Compared to Conventional Culture and Sensitivity Testing for the Management of Complicated Urinary Tract Infections in Adults.), which is not on this 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.
Clinical Validity and Utility of PCR Compared to Conventional Culture and Sensitivity Testing for the Management of Complicated Urinary Tract Infections in Adults.
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
4 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundComplicated and recurrent urinary tract infections (cUTI/rUTI) remain diagnostically challenging, particularly after antimicrobial exposure and in polymicrobial or fastidious infections. Multiplex PCR may address some limitations of culture, but panel composition requires periodic refinement as epidemiological, resistance, and clinical evidence evolves. This study describes the transition of the DocLab UTM™ multiplex PCR assay from the prospectively evaluated V2 configuration to the redesigned V5 configuration.
methodsV2 pathogen-level agreement with quantitative urine culture and molecular AMR target-phenotypic AST agreement were characterized using 773 baseline specimens from the prospective multicenter NCT06996301 study. V2-to-V5 panel reconfiguration incorporated US epidemiological and AMR evidence, clinical and antimicrobial-stewardship considerations, and species-level reporting value. V5 was assessed retrospectively using 743 evaluable archived specimens from the same NCT06996301 cohort. Pathogen and AMR agreement were evaluated against the original parent-study quantitative culture and phenotypic AST comparators, and directly shared V2-V5 targets were compared within the common paired cohort using McNemar testing with Holm adjustment for multiple target-specific comparisons. Six newly introduced pathogen targets and one internal process-control target underwent limited contrived-urine feasibility testing.
resultsV2 showed high agreement for most established pathogen and AMR targets, although lower negative percent agreement was observed for selected composite pathogen groups. V5 separated several composite targets into species-level outputs and modified selected AMR reporting, principally the
conclusionsV5 increased species-level reporting resolution while retaining generally high retrospective pathogen and AMR agreement with the original parent-study comparators. Paired analyses did not identify statistically significant directional changes in shared-target classifications. Newly introduced targets require comprehensive validation, and prospective evaluation of the final V5 configuration is needed before conclusions regarding clinical or stewardship benefit can be made.
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.