↓ Skip to main content

Point-of-care urine culture for managing urinary tract infection in primary care: a randomised controlled trial of clinical and cost-effectiveness

Overview of attention for article published in British Journal of General Practice, February 2018
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (89th percentile)
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (78th percentile)

Mentioned by

news
1 news outlet
twitter
22 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
27 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
108 Mendeley
Title
Point-of-care urine culture for managing urinary tract infection in primary care: a randomised controlled trial of clinical and cost-effectiveness
Published in
British Journal of General Practice, February 2018
DOI 10.3399/bjgp18x695285
Pubmed ID
Authors

Christopher C Butler, Nick A Francis, Emma Thomas-Jones, Mirella Longo, Mandy Wootton, Carl Llor, Paul Little, Michael Moore, Janine Bates, Timothy Pickles, Nigel Kirby, David Gillespie, Kate Rumsby, Curt Brugman, Micaela Gal, Kerenza Hood, Theo Verheij

Abstract

The effectiveness of using point-of-care (POC) urine culture in primary care on appropriate antibiotic use is unknown. To assess whether use of the Flexicult™SSI-Urinary Kit, which quantifies bacterial growth and determines antibiotic susceptibility at the point of care, achieves antibiotic use that is more often concordant with laboratory culture results, when compared with standard care. Individually randomised trial of females with uncomplicated urinary tract infection (UTI) in primary care research networks (PCRNs) in England, the Netherlands, Spain, and Wales. Multilevel regression compared outcomes between the two groups while controlling for clustering. In total, 329 participants were randomised to POC testing (POCT) and 325 to standard care, and 324 and 319 analysed. Fewer females randomised to the POCT arm than those who received standard care were prescribed antibiotics at the initial consultation (267/324 [82.4%] versus 282/319 [88.4%], odds ratio [OR] 0.56, 95% confidence interval [CI] = 0.35 to 0.88). Clinicians indicated the POCT result changed their management for 190/301 (63.1%). Despite this, there was no statistically significant difference between study arms in antibiotic use that was concordant with laboratory culture results (primary outcome) at day 3 (39.3% POCT versus 44.1% standard care, OR 0.84, 95% CI = 0.58 to 1.20), and there was no evidence of any differences in recovery, patient enablement, UTI recurrences, re-consultation, antibiotic resistance, and hospitalisations at follow-up. POCT culture was not cost-effective. Point-of-care urine culture was not effective when used mainly to adjust immediate antibiotic prescriptions. Further research should evaluate use of the test to guide initiation of 'delayed antibiotics'.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 22 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 108 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 108 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 21 19%
Student > Ph. D. Student 14 13%
Student > Bachelor 14 13%
Researcher 9 8%
Other 6 6%
Other 13 12%
Unknown 31 29%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 35 32%
Immunology and Microbiology 6 6%
Nursing and Health Professions 5 5%
Veterinary Science and Veterinary Medicine 3 3%
Psychology 3 3%
Other 15 14%
Unknown 41 38%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 23. 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 17 June 2022.
All research outputs
#1,456,380
of 23,577,654 outputs
Outputs from British Journal of General Practice
#729
of 4,387 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#33,740
of 331,363 outputs
Outputs of similar age from British Journal of General Practice
#22
of 103 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,577,654 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 93rd percentile: it's in the top 10% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 4,387 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 19.5. This one has done well, scoring higher than 83% 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 331,363 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done well, scoring higher than 89% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 103 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 78% of its contemporaries.