Urine culture practices for complicated urinary tract infections in an academic emergency department.

OBJECTIVE: Complicated UTIs (cUTIs) are defined by a heterogenous group of risk factors that place the patient at increased risk of treatment failure in whom urine cultures are recommended. We evaluated the ordering practices for urine cultures for cUTI patients and patient outcomes in an academic hospital setting. METHODS: Retrospective chart review of adults of 18 years and older with cUTIs diagnosed in a single academic emergency department (ED). We reviewed 398 patient encounters based on a range of ICD-10 diagnosis codes consistent with cUTI between 1/1/2019 and 6/30/2019. The definition of cUTI consisted of thirteen subgroups composited from existing literature and guidelines. The primary outcome was ordering a urine culture for cUTI. We also assessed impact of the urine culture results and compared clinical course severity and readmission rates between cultured and not cultured patients. RESULTS: During this period, the ED had 398 potential cUTI visits based on ICD-10 code, of which 330 (82.9%) met the study inclusion criteria for cUTI. Of these cUTI encounters, clinicians failed to obtain urine cultures in 92 (29.8%). Of the 217 cUTI with cultures, 121 (55.8%) demonstrated sensitivity to original treatment, 10 (4.6%) demonstrated the need to change antimicrobial coverage, 49 (22.6%) demonstrated the presence of contamination, and 29 (13.4%) demonstrated insignificant growth. Patients with cUTI who received cultures experienced higher rates of admission to both ED observation (33.2% vs 16.3%, p = 0.003) and the hospital (41.9% vs 23.8%, p = 0.003) compared to those with missed cultures. Admitted cUTI patients experienced greater length of hospital stay when cultures were obtained (3.23 vs 1.53 days, p < 0.001). Readmission rates for patients with cUTI discharged from the ED within 30 days were 4.0% for patients with urine cultures and 7.3% for patients without urine cultures (p = 0.155). CONCLUSION: Over a quarter of cUTI patients in this study did not receive a urine culture. Further studies are needed to assess if improving adherence to urine culturing practices for cUTIs will impact clinical outcomes.

Applicable or non-applicable: investigations of clinical heterogeneity in systematic reviews.

BACKGROUND: Clinical heterogeneity can be defined as differences in participant characteristics, types or timing of outcome measurements and intervention characteristics. Clinical heterogeneity in systematic reviews has the possibility to significantly affect statistical heterogeneity leading to inaccurate conclusions and misled decision making. The aim of this study is to identify to what extent investigators are assessing clinical heterogeneity in both Cochrane and non-Cochrane systematic reviews. METHODS: The most recent 100 systematic reviews from the top five journals in medicine-JAMA, Archives of Internal Medicine, British Medical Journal, The Lancet, and PLOS Medicine-and the 100 most recently published and/or updated systematic reviews from Cochrane were collected. Various defined items of clinical heterogeneity were extracted from the included reviews. Investigators used chi-squared tests, logarithmic modeling and linear regressions to determine if the presence of such items served as a predictor for clinical heterogeneity when comparing Cochrane to non-Cochrane reviews. Extracted variables include number of studies, number of participants, presence of quantitative synthesis, exploration of clinical heterogeneity, heterogeneous characteristics explored, basis and methods used for investigating clinical heterogeneity, plotting/visual aids, author contact, inferences from clinical heterogeneity investigation, reporting assessment, and the presence of a priori or post-hoc analysis. RESULTS: A total of 317 systematic reviews were considered, of which 199 were in the final analysis. A total of 81% of Cochrane reviews and 90% of non-Cochrane reviews explored characteristics that are considered aspects of clinical heterogeneity and also described the methods they planned to use to investigate the influence of those characteristics. Only 1% of non-Cochrane reviews and 8% of Cochrane reviews explored the clinical characteristics they initially chose as potential for clinical heterogeneity. Very few studies mentioned clinician training, compliance, brand, co-interventions, dose route, ethnicity, prognostic markers and psychosocial variables as covariates to investigate as potentially clinically heterogeneous. Addressing aspects of clinical heterogeneity was not different between Cochrane and non-Cochrane reviews. CONCLUSIONS: The ability to quantify and compare the clinical differences of trials within a meta-analysis is crucial to determining its applicability and use in clinical practice. Despite Cochrane Collaboration emphasis on methodology, the proportion of reviews that assess clinical heterogeneity is less than those of non-Cochrane reviews. Our assessment reveals that there is room for improvement in assessing clinical heterogeneity in both Cochrane and non-Cochrane reviews.

Risk of bias of randomized controlled trials published in orthopaedic journals.

BACKGROUND: The purpose of this study was to assess the quality of methodology in orthopaedics-related randomized controlled trials (RCTs) published from January 2006 to December 2010 in the top orthopaedic journals based on impact scores from the Thompson ISI citation reports (2010). METHODS: Journals included American Journal of Sports Medicine; Journal of Orthopaedic Research; Journal of Bone and Joint Surgery, American; Spine Journal; and Osteoarthritis and Cartilage. Each RCT was assessed on ten criteria (randomization method, allocation sequence concealment, participant blinding, outcome assessor blinding, outcome measurement, interventionist training, withdrawals, intent to treat analyses, clustering, and baseline characteristics) as having empirical evidence for biasing treatment effect estimates when not performed properly. RESULTS: A total of 232 RCTs met our inclusion criteria. The proportion of RCTs in published journals fell from 6% in 2006 to 4% in 2010. Forty-nine percent of the criteria were fulfilled across these journals, with 42% of the criteria not being amendable to assessment due to inadequate reporting. The results of our regression revealed that a more recent publication year was significantly associated with more fulfilled criteria (ß = 0.171; CI = -0.00 to 0.342; p = 0.051). CONCLUSION: In summary, very few studies met all ten criteria. Thus, many of these studies likely have biased estimates of treatment effects. In addition, these journals had poor reporting of important methodological aspects.