Practice variation in urine collection methods among pre-toilet trained children with suspected urinary tract infection: a systematic review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Urinary tract infections (UTIs) are a common cause of acute illness among infants and young children. There are numerous methods for collecting urine in children who are not toilet trained. This review examined practice variation in the urine collection methods for diagnosing UTI in non-toilet-trained children. METHODS: A systematic review was completed by searching MEDLINE (Ovid), Embase (Ovid), CENTRAL (Ovid), PsycInfo (Ovid), CINAHL (EBSCO), and JBI (Ovid) from January 1, 2000 until October 9, 2021 and updated on May 24, 2023. Studies were included if they were conducted in an acute care facility, examined pre-toilet trained children, and compared one urine collection method with another for relevant health care outcomes (such as length of stay in an ED, or re-visits or readmissions to the ED) or provider satisfaction. Two independent reviewers screened the identified articles independently, and those included in the final analysis were assessed for quality and bias using the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale. RESULTS: Overall, 2535 articles were reviewed and 8 studies with a total of 728 children were included in the final analysis. Seven studies investigated the primary outcome of interest, practice variation in urine collection methods to diagnose a UTI. The seven studies that investigated novel methods of urine collection concluded that there were improved health care outcomes compared to conventional methods. Novel methods include emerging methods that are not captured yet captured in clinical practice guidelines including the use of ultrasound guidance to aid existing techniques. Three studies which investigated healthcare provider satisfaction found preference to novel methods of urine collection. CONCLUSIONS: There is significant practice variation in the urine collection methods within and between countries. Further research is needed to better examine practice variation among clinicians and adherence to national organizations and societies guidelines. PROSPERO registration number CRD42021267754.
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 | 0.026 | 0.145 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.008 | 0.007 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.010 | 0.014 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".