| Title |
Urinary alkalisation for symptomatic uncomplicated urinary tract infection in women
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Cochrane database of systematic reviews, April 2016
|
| DOI | 10.1002/14651858.cd010745.pub2 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Dermot B O'Kane, Sameer K Dave, Neel Gore, Farhaan Patel, Tammy C Hoffmann, Jeanne L Trill, Chris B Del Mar |
| Abstract |
Uncomplicated urinary tract infection (UTI) is the most common bacterial infection in women, characterised by dysuria and urinary frequency. Urinary alkalisers are widely used in some countries for the symptomatic treatment of uncomplicated UTI, and they are recommended in some national formularies. However, there is a lack of empirical evidence to support their use for UTI and some healthcare guidelines advise against their use. We aimed to look at the benefits and harms of the use of urinary alkalisers for the treatment of uncomplicated UTIs in adult women. We searched the Cochrane Kidney and Transplant Specialised Register to 19 January 2016 through contact with the Trials Search Co-ordinator using search terms relevant to this review. All randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and quasi-RCTs on the use of (any) urinary alkalisers (either exclusively or non-exclusively) for the symptomatic treatment of uncomplicated UTI amongst women aged 16 and over, were included. Studies were eligible if they included patients whose diagnosis of UTI was decided by symptoms alone, or positive urine dipstick test or urine culture; and patients with recurrent UTI, provided patients had no symptoms of UTI in the two weeks prior to the onset of symptoms that lead them to seek medical advice. Studies were ineligible if they studied patients with complicated UTIs; immune-compromising conditions; acute pyelonephritis; or chronic conditions such as interstitial cystitis. Three authors independently assessed and screened papers, and this was repeated by two separate authors (independently). An additional investigator acted as arbitrator, where necessary. There were no papers which fulfilled the inclusion criteria for this review, and therefore no data extraction was performed. Our search identified 172 potential studies for inclusion. However, following assessment none fulfilled the inclusion criteria for this review. Until relevant evidence is generated from randomised trials, the safety and efficacy of urinary alkalisers for the symptomatic treatment of uncomplicated UTI remains unknown. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 6 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Australia | 2 | 33% |
| India | 1 | 17% |
| Ecuador | 1 | 17% |
| United States | 1 | 17% |
| Unknown | 1 | 17% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 4 | 67% |
| Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 2 | 33% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 132 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Spain | 1 | <1% |
| Unknown | 131 | 99% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Master | 16 | 12% |
| Student > Bachelor | 14 | 11% |
| Student > Doctoral Student | 11 | 8% |
| Other | 10 | 8% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 8 | 6% |
| Other | 27 | 20% |
| Unknown | 46 | 35% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 43 | 33% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 12 | 9% |
| Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science | 7 | 5% |
| Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology | 4 | 3% |
| Social Sciences | 4 | 3% |
| Other | 11 | 8% |
| Unknown | 51 | 39% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 4. 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 28 June 2021.
All research outputs
#7,915,082
of 25,728,855 outputs
Outputs from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#9,208
of 13,136 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#102,917
of 314,270 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#201
of 285 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,728,855 research outputs across all sources so far. This one has received more attention than most of these and is in the 68th percentile.
So far Altmetric has tracked 13,136 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 35.8. This one is in the 29th percentile – i.e., 29% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
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 314,270 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 66% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 285 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 27th percentile – i.e., 27% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.