Clinical management protocols for community pharmacist-led management of urinary tract infections: a review of the grey literature and quality appraisal
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Pharmacist-led management of urinary tract infections has been introduced as a service in the United Kingdom, Canada, United States of America, New Zealand, and Australia. The management of acute uncomplicated urinary tract infections by community pharmacists has gained increasing attention as a potential avenue to alleviate the burden on primary healthcare services. AIM: The objectives of the review were to: (1) identify protocols for community pharmacist management of acute uncomplicated urinary tract infections in women aged 16-65 years; (2) outline their key components; and (3) appraise the quality of protocols. METHOD: A grey literature search was undertaken for protocols intended for use by community pharmacists for the management of acute uncomplicated urinary tract infections in women aged 16-65 years, met the definition of a clinical management protocol and written in English. Their quality was appraised using the Appraisal Guidelines for Research and Evaluation version II instrument. RESULTS: Forty of the 274 records screened were included. Content analysis identified ten key components: common signs/symptoms, differential diagnosis, red flags/referral, choice of empirical antibiotic therapy, nonprescription medications, nonpharmacological/self-care advice, patient eligibility criteria, patient follow-up, dipstick testing recommendations, and recommendations on antimicrobial resistance. The lowest scoring domains in the quality assessment were 'Editorial Independence' and 'Rigour of Development'. Only four protocols were deemed high-quality. CONCLUSION: The review demonstrates that clinical management protocols for pharmacist-led management of urinary tract infections consist of similar recommendations, despite variation in international practice. However, the findings highlight a deficiency in the quality of most clinical management protocols governing pharmacist-led urinary tract infection management.
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 | 0.215 | 0.516 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.009 | 0.008 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.029 | 0.028 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.009 | 0.009 |
| Open science | 0.007 | 0.006 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 0.001 |
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.
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".