scholarly journals Improved diagnostics of infectious diseases in emergency departments: a protocol of a multifaceted multicentre diagnostic study

BMJ Open ◽  
2021 ◽  
Vol 11 (9) ◽  
pp. e049606
Author(s):  
Helene Skjøt-Arkil ◽  
Anne Heltborg ◽  
Morten Hjarnø Lorentzen ◽  
Mariana Bichuette Cartuliares ◽  
Mathias Amdi Hertz ◽  
...  

BackgroundThe major obstacle in prescribing an appropriate and targeted antibiotic treatment is insufficient knowledge concerning whether the patient has a bacterial infection, where the focus of infection is and which bacteria are the agents of the infection. A prerequisite for the appropriate use of antibiotics is timely access to accurate diagnostics such as point-of-care (POC) testing.The study aims to evaluate diagnostic tools and working methods that support a prompt and accurate diagnosis of hospitalised patients suspected of an acute infection. We will focus on the most common acute infections: community-acquired pneumonia (CAP) and acute pyelonephritis (APN). The objectives are to investigate (1) patient characteristics and treatment trajectory of the different acute infections, (2) diagnostic and prognostic accuracy of infection markers, (3) diagnostic accuracy of POC urine flow cytometry on diagnosing and excluding bacteriuria, (4) how effective the addition of POC analysis of sputum to the diagnostic set-up for CAP is on antibiotic prescriptions, (5) diagnostic accuracy of POC ultrasound and ultralow dose (ULD) computerized tomography (CT) on diagnosing CAP, (6) diagnostic accuracy of specialist ultrasound on diagnosing APN, (7) diagnostic accuracy of POC ultrasound in diagnosing hydronephrosis in patients suspected of APN.Methods and analysisIt is a multifaceted multicentre diagnostic study, including 1000 adults admitted with suspicion of an acute infection. Participants will, within the first 24 hours of admission, undergo additional diagnostic tests including infection markers, POC urine flow cytometry, POC analysis of sputum, POC and specialist ultrasound, and ULDCT. The primary reference standard is an assigned diagnosis determined by a panel of experts.Ethics, dissemination and registrationApproved by Regional Committees on Health Research Ethics for Southern Denmark, Danish Data Protection Agency and clinicaltrials.gov. Results will be presented in peer-reviewed journals, and positive, negative and inconclusive results will be published.Trial registration numbersNCT04661085, NCT04681963, NCT04667195, NCT04652167, NCT04686318, NCT04686292, NCT04651712, NCT04645030, NCT04651244.

2016 ◽  
Vol 15 (3) ◽  
pp. e257
Author(s):  
G. Bonkat ◽  
A. Halla ◽  
H. Seifert ◽  
G. Müller ◽  
O. Braissant ◽  
...  

2015 ◽  
Vol 448 ◽  
pp. 86-90 ◽  
Author(s):  
N. Geerts ◽  
A.R. Jansz ◽  
K.J.M. Boonen ◽  
R.P.W.F. Wijn ◽  
E.L. Koldewijn ◽  
...  

2020 ◽  
Vol 58 (4) ◽  
pp. e120-e122
Author(s):  
Eline S. Andersen ◽  
Claus L. Brasen ◽  
Anne F. Christensen ◽  
Claus Østergaard ◽  
Ivan Brandslund

1995 ◽  
Vol 59 (4) ◽  
pp. 495-500 ◽  
Author(s):  
Isabel Roberti ◽  
Lewis Reisman ◽  
Lewis Burrows ◽  
Kenneth V. Lieberman

2017 ◽  
Vol 66 (9) ◽  
pp. 1308-1315 ◽  
Author(s):  
Aleksandra Stefanovic ◽  
Diane Roscoe ◽  
Romali Ranasinghe ◽  
Titus Wong ◽  
Elizabeth Bryce ◽  
...  

2021 ◽  
pp. 1-10
Author(s):  
Moritz Fritzenwanker ◽  
Marcel Oliver Grabitz ◽  
Borros Arneth ◽  
Harald Renz ◽  
Can Imirzalioglu ◽  
...  

<b><i>Introduction:</i></b> The aims of this study were to evaluate urine flow cytometry (UFC) as a tool to screen urine samples of urological patients for bacteriuria and to compare UFC and dipstick analysis with urine culture in a patient cohort at a urological department of a university hospital. <b><i>Methods and Material:</i></b> We screened 662 urine samples from urological patients (75.2% male; 80.7% inpatients; mean age 58 years). UFC results were compared to microbiological urine culture. <b><i>Results:</i></b> The accuracy in using the UFC-based parameters for detecting cultural bacteriuria was 91.99% and 88.97% for ≥10<sup>5</sup> colony-forming units (CFU)/mL and ≥10<sup>4</sup> CFU/mL, respectively. UFC and leukocyte dipstick analysis measured leukocyturia similarly (Pearson correlation coefficient 0.87, <i>p</i> value &#x3c;0.01%), but dipstick analysis scored less accurately on bacteriuria (accuracy 59.37% and 62.69%). UFC remained effective in subgroup analysis of patients of both sexes and with different urological conditions with its overall use only slightly impaired when assessing gross hematuria (NPV 84.62% for ≥10<sup>4</sup> CFU/mL). UFC also reliably removed those urine samples below cutoffs with negative predictive values of 99.28% for ≥10<sup>5</sup> CFU/mL and 95.86% for ≥10<sup>4</sup> CFU/mL. <b><i>Conclusion:</i></b> Counting bacteria with UFC is an accurate and rapid method to determine significant bacteriuria in urological patients and is superior to dipstick analysis or indirect surrogate parameters such as leukocyturia. When UFC is available, we recommend it to be used for the diagnosis of bacteriuria over findings obtained by dipstick analysis.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document