↓ Skip to main content

Childhood urinary tract infection in primary care: a prospective observational study of prevalence, diagnosis, treatment, and recovery

Overview of attention for article published in British Journal of General Practice, March 2015
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (72nd percentile)
  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source

Mentioned by

twitter
7 X users
facebook
1 Facebook page

Citations

dimensions_citation
17 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
102 Mendeley
Title
Childhood urinary tract infection in primary care: a prospective observational study of prevalence, diagnosis, treatment, and recovery
Published in
British Journal of General Practice, March 2015
DOI 10.3399/bjgp15x684361
Pubmed ID
Authors

Christopher C Butler, Kathryn O'Brien, Timothy Pickles, Kerenza Hood, Mandy Wootton, Robin Howe, Cherry-Ann Waldron, Emma Thomas-Jones, William Hollingworth, Paul Little, Judith Van Der Voort, Jan Dudley, Kate Rumsby, Harriet Downing, Kim Harman, Alastair D Hay

Abstract

The prevalence of targeted and serendipitous treatment for, and associated recovery from, urinary tract infection (UTI) in pre-school children is unknown. To determine the frequency and suspicion of UTI in children who are acutely ill, along with details of antibiotic prescribing, its appropriateness, and whether that appropriateness impacted on symptom improvement and recovery. Prospective observational cohort study in primary care sites in urban and rural areas in England and Wales. Systematic urine sampling from children aged <5years presenting in primary care with acute illness with culture in NHS laboratories. Of 6079 children's urine samples, 339 (5.6%) met laboratory criteria for UTI and 162 (47.9%) were prescribed antibiotics at the initial consultation. In total, 576/7101 (8.1%) children were suspected of having a UTI prior to urine sampling, including 107 of the 338 with a UTI (clinician sensitivity 31.7%). Children with a laboratory-diagnosed UTI were more likely to be prescribed antibiotics when UTI was clinically suspected than when it was not (86.0% versus 30.3%, P<0.001). Of 231 children with unsuspected UTI, 70 (30.3%) received serendipitous antibiotics (that is, antibiotics prescribed for a different reason). Overall, 176 (52.1%) children with confirmed UTI did not receive any initial antibiotic. Organism sensitivity to the prescribed antibiotic was higher when UTI was suspected than when treated serendipitously (77.1% versus 26.0%; P<0.001). Children with UTI prescribed appropriate antibiotics at the initial consultation improved a little sooner than those with a UTI who were not prescribed appropriate antibiotics initially (3.5 days versus 4.0 days; P = 0.005). Over half of children with UTI on culture were not prescribed antibiotics at first presentation. Serendipitous UTI treatment was relatively common, but often inappropriate to the organism's sensitivity. Methods for improved targeting of antibiotic treatment in children who are acutely unwell are urgently needed.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 7 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 102 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United Kingdom 1 <1%
Unknown 101 99%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 16 16%
Student > Master 13 13%
Student > Bachelor 10 10%
Unspecified 8 8%
Other 7 7%
Other 20 20%
Unknown 28 27%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 42 41%
Unspecified 8 8%
Mathematics 3 3%
Nursing and Health Professions 3 3%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 2 2%
Other 10 10%
Unknown 34 33%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 5. 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 18 November 2018.
All research outputs
#6,109,585
of 22,833,393 outputs
Outputs from British Journal of General Practice
#2,030
of 4,281 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#71,523
of 263,826 outputs
Outputs of similar age from British Journal of General Practice
#28
of 49 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,833,393 research outputs across all sources so far. This one has received more attention than most of these and is in the 73rd percentile.
So far Altmetric has tracked 4,281 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 18.4. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 52% 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 263,826 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 72% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 49 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 42nd percentile – i.e., 42% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.