Updates to Recurrent Uncomplicated Urinary Tract Infections in Women: AUA/CUA/SUFU Guideline (2025)
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: Our perceptions of recurrent UTI (rUTI) have evolved due to additional insights into rUTI pathophysiology, an appreciation for the adverse effects of repetitive antimicrobials ("collateral damage"), rising rates of bacterial antimicrobial resistance, and better reporting of the natural history of localized cystitis and rUTI. This document seeks to guide the evaluation and management of patients with rUTIs to prevent inappropriate antibiotic use, decrease the risk of antibiotic resistance, reduce adverse effects of antibiotics, provide guidance on strategies for rUTI prevention, and improve outcomes and quality of life for women with rUTIs. MATERIALS AND METHODS: In 2024, this Guideline was reviewed via the AUA Update Literature Review process, which identified 87 studies for full-text review published between June 1, 2021 and November 1, 2024. Of those 87 studies, 14 met inclusion criteria for review. The subsequent amendment is based on data released since the last review of this Guideline in 2021. RESULTS: The Panel developed evidence- and consensus-based statements based on an updated review to provide guidance on evaluation and management of rUTI in women. These updates are detailed herein. CONCLUSIONS: This update provides several new insights, including expansion of non-antibiotic options for UTI prophylaxis, greater understanding of the value of a negative urinalysis in ruling out UTI, and a paradigm shift away from microbial detection to reliance on clinician judgement when weighing the individual risks and benefits of antibiosis. This Guideline will require further review as the diagnostic and treatment options in this space continue to evolve.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".