| Title |
Urine trouble: should we think differently about UTI?
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
International Urogynecology Journal & Pelvic Floor Dysfunction, December 2017
|
| DOI | 10.1007/s00192-017-3528-8 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Travis K. Price, Evann E. Hilt, Tanaka J. Dune, Elizabeth R. Mueller, Alan J. Wolfe, Linda Brubaker |
| Abstract |
Urinary tract infection (UTI) is clinically important, given that it is one of the most common bacterial infections in adult women. However, the current understanding of UTI remains based on a now disproven concept that the urinary bladder is sterile. Thus, current standards for UTI diagnosis have significant limitations that may reduce the opportunity to improve patient care. Using data from our work and numerous other peer-reviewed studies, we identified four major limitations to the contemporary UTI description: the language of UTI, UTI diagnostic testing, the Escherichia coli-centric view of UTI, and the colony-forming units (CFU) threshold-based diagnosis. Contemporary methods and technology, combined with continued rigorous clinical research can be used to correct these limitations. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 55 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United Kingdom | 20 | 36% |
| Australia | 4 | 7% |
| United States | 3 | 5% |
| India | 1 | 2% |
| Sweden | 1 | 2% |
| Unknown | 26 | 47% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 43 | 78% |
| Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 6 | 11% |
| Scientists | 4 | 7% |
| Unknown | 2 | 4% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 87 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 87 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Researcher | 16 | 18% |
| Student > Master | 14 | 16% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 7 | 8% |
| Student > Doctoral Student | 6 | 7% |
| Student > Bachelor | 6 | 7% |
| Other | 16 | 18% |
| Unknown | 22 | 25% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 18 | 21% |
| Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology | 10 | 11% |
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 9 | 10% |
| Immunology and Microbiology | 9 | 10% |
| Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science | 4 | 5% |
| Other | 13 | 15% |
| Unknown | 24 | 28% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 44. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 08 March 2024.
All research outputs
#964,635
of 25,793,330 outputs
Outputs from International Urogynecology Journal & Pelvic Floor Dysfunction
#52
of 2,917 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#21,722
of 451,715 outputs
Outputs of similar age from International Urogynecology Journal & Pelvic Floor Dysfunction
#4
of 28 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,793,330 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 96th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 2,917 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 5.0. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 98% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 451,715 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 95% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 28 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 85% of its contemporaries.