MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1987793052 · doi:10.1016/j.juro.2011.02.788

1176 A PROSPECTIVE STUDY EXAMINING THE INCIDENCE OF BACTERIURIA AND URINARY TRACT INFECTION POST-SHOCKWAVE LITHOTRIPSY: THE CASE AGAINST UNIVERSAL ANTIBIOTIC PROPHYLAXIS

2011· article· en· W1987793052 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Joshua D. Wiesenthal, Daniela Ghiculete, Michael Ordon, Kenneth T. Pace, R. John D’A. Honey

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Journal of Urology · 2011
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicKidney Stones and Urolithiasis Treatments
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineAntibiotic prophylaxisBacteriuriaUrinary systemIncidence (geometry)AntibioticsProspective cohort studySurgeryInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

You have accessJournal of UrologyInfections/Inflammation of the Genitourinary Tract: Kidney & Bladder1 Apr 20111176 A PROSPECTIVE STUDY EXAMINING THE INCIDENCE OF BACTERIURIA AND URINARY TRACT INFECTION POST-SHOCKWAVE LITHOTRIPSY: THE CASE AGAINST UNIVERSAL ANTIBIOTIC PROPHYLAXIS Joshua D. Wiesenthal, Daniela Ghiculete, Michael Ordon, Kenneth T. Pace, and R. John D'A Honey Joshua D. WiesenthalJoshua D. Wiesenthal Toronto, Canada More articles by this author , Daniela GhiculeteDaniela Ghiculete Toronto, Canada More articles by this author , Michael OrdonMichael Ordon Toronto, Canada More articles by this author , Kenneth T. PaceKenneth T. Pace Toronto, Canada More articles by this author , and R. John D'A HoneyR. John D'A Honey Toronto, Canada More articles by this author View All Author Informationhttps://doi.org/10.1016/j.juro.2011.02.788AboutPDF ToolsAdd to favoritesDownload CitationsTrack CitationsPermissionsReprints ShareFacebookTwitterLinked InEmail INTRODUCTION AND OBJECTIVES Controversy exists over the need for antibiotic prophylaxis prior to shockwave lithotripsy (SWL). The AUA's Best Practice Policy Statement on Urologic Surgery Antimicrobial Prophylaxis uses level 1A evidence to indicate universal antibiotic prophylaxis, whereas the EAU's Guidelines on Urological Infections cites level 1A evidence to indicate prophylaxis only for patients with urinary drainage tubes, ureteral stents or infected stones. This prospective, single-centre quality assurance study evaluates the use of targeted antibiotic prophylaxis in patients undergoing SWL. METHODS Over a three-month period, patients undergoing SWL for renal and ureteral calculi were enrolled. All patients underwent urine dipstick, microscopy and culture prior to SWL. At our centre antibiotic prophylaxis was provided to patients with nephrostomy tubes, history of infected stones or urine dipsticks with both nitrites and leukocytes. The presence of ureteral stents was not an indication for prophylaxis. All patients had a urine culture performed 3 days post-SWL if they did not undergo antibiotic prophylaxis, or 2 days after finishing their course of antibiotic prophylaxis. All patients completed a survey documenting fevers or urinary symptoms up to one-week post-treatment. RESULTS 526 patients (63.7% male, 36.3% female) with a mean age of 54.17 years and BMI of 28.05 kg/m2 were enrolled. 78 (15.1%) patients underwent SWL with previously placed ureteral stents. Only 3 (13.0%) of the positive urine cultures taken prior to SWL were both leukocyte and nitrite positive on urine dipstick, whereas 17 (54.8%) of the positive urine cultures were both leukocyte and nitrite negative on dipstick. 10 (2.2%) patients were administered antibiotic prophylaxis (6 of which had ureteral stents), and 14 (2.7%) were given antibiotics post-treatment. Post-SWL, only 1 (0.2%) patient developed a urinary tract infection (UTI) and 4 (0.8%) patients developed asymptomatic bacteriuria CONCLUSIONS The rates of UTI and asymptomatic bacteriuria following SWL are extremely low (<1%) with targeted antibiotic prophylaxis. Furthermore, the ability of urine dipstick to screen for positive urine cultures is low in this urolithiasis population. This prospective case series questions the need for universal antibiotic prophylaxis prior to SWL, as well as the need for antibiotic prophylaxis in patients undergoing SWL with indwelling ureteral stents. © 2011 by American Urological Association Education and Research, Inc.FiguresReferencesRelatedDetailsCited byMira Moreno A, Montoya Lirola M, García Tabar P, Galiano Baena J, Tenza Tenza J and Lobato Encinas J (2018) Incidence of Infectious Complications after Extracorporeal Shock Wave Lithotripsy in Patients Without Associated Risk FactorsJournal of Urology, VOL. 192, NO. 5, (1446-1449), Online publication date: 1-Nov-2014.Lu Y, Tianyong F, Ping H, Liangren L, Haichao Y and Qiang W (2018) Antibiotic Prophylaxis for Shock Wave Lithotripsy in Patients with Sterile Urine Before Treatment May be Unnecessary: A Systematic Review and Meta-AnalysisJournal of Urology, VOL. 188, NO. 2, (441-448), Online publication date: 1-Aug-2012. Volume 185Issue 4SApril 2011Page: e472 Advertisement Copyright & Permissions© 2011 by American Urological Association Education and Research, Inc.MetricsAuthor Information Joshua D. Wiesenthal Toronto, Canada More articles by this author Daniela Ghiculete Toronto, Canada More articles by this author Michael Ordon Toronto, Canada More articles by this author Kenneth T. Pace Toronto, Canada More articles by this author R. John D'A Honey Toronto, Canada More articles by this author Expand All Advertisement Advertisement PDF downloadLoading ...

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.005
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.022
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.018
Threshold uncertainty score0.036

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0050.022
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.003
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0050.001

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.028
GPT teacher head0.267
Teacher spread0.239 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations3
Published2011
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe Journal of UrologySame topicKidney Stones and Urolithiasis TreatmentsFrench-language works237,207