Modified reporting of positive urine cultures to reduce treatment of asymptomatic bacteriuria in long-term care facilities: a randomized controlled trial
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Objectives We conducted a prospective, randomized, unblinded superiority trial of the safety and efficacy of modified reporting of positive urine cultures to improve the appropriateness of treatment for asymptomatic bacteriuria (ASB) and urinary tract infection (UTI) in long-term care facilities (LTCFs). Methods Consecutive positive urine cultures collected from LTCF patients were randomized between standard (identification and susceptibility) or modified (without identification and susceptibility) laboratory reports. Exclusion criteria were current antibiotic treatment, neutropenia, or transfer to acute care. The diagnosis of UTI or ASB was made prospectively. Results One hundred and sixty-nine urine cultures were considered, 100 were randomized and included in ITT analysis, and 96 were included in PP analysis. Sixty-two out of 100 (62%) patients had ASB [41/62 (66%) treated] and 38/100 (38%) had UTI [35/38 (92%) treated]. The lab was called to report the identification and susceptibility in 31/51 (61%) modified reports. The rate of appropriate treatment was higher in the modified report arm: 31/51 (61%) versus 25/49 (51%) (+10%, P = 0.33). Untreated ASB was higher in the modified report arm: 13/32 (41%) versus 8/30 (27%) (+14%, P = 0.25). There were two deaths (one treated ASB, one untreated ASB) and 15 adverse events in the modified arm. There were no deaths (P = 0.16) and 11 adverse events (P = 0.43) in the standard arm. Three patients with untreated UTI survived. Conclusions Modified reporting of urine culture improved the appropriateness of treatment by reducing treatment of ASB, but not significantly. Many LTCF prescribers requested standard urine culture reports. Modified reporting may not be suitable for LTCF implementation.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.006 | 0.011 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".