Evidence Hub

Clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of tests for the diagnosis and investigation of urinary tract infection in children: a systematic review and economic model

P. Whiting, M. Westwood, L. Bojke, S. Palmer, G. Richardson, J. Cooper, I. Watt, Julie May Glanville et al.

Health Technology Assessment, 2006

218 citations

Abstract

OBJECTIVES

To determine the diagnostic accuracy of tests for detecting urinary tract infection (UTI) in children under 5 years of age and to evaluate the effectiveness of tests used to investigate further children with confirmed UTI. Also, to evaluate the effectiveness of following up children with UTI and the cost-effectiveness of diagnostic and imaging tests for the diagnosis and follow-up of UTI in children under 5. An additional objective was to develop a preliminary diagnostic algorithm for healthcare professionals.

DATA SOURCES

Electronic databases were searched up to the end of 2002/early 2003. Consultation with experts in the field.

REVIEW METHODS

A systematic review was undertaken using published guidelines and results were analysed according to test grouping: diagnosis of UTI and further investigation of UTI. The cost-effectiveness results from existing evaluations were synthesised. A separate cost-effectiveness model was developed using the best available evidence, in part derived from the results of the systematic review, to illustrate the potential cost-effectiveness of some alternative management strategies in a UK setting. The results of the systematic review were used to propose diagnostic algorithms for the diagnosis and further investigation of UTI in children. Economic analyses did not contribute directly to the development of these algorithms.

RESULTS

The studies included in the review provided very little data on the accuracy of clinical investigations…

How strong is the evidence?

Evidence Hub reads this as a systematic review, done in people. Its evidence level is 1 of 5 (Highest · pooled evidence). Pooled evidence from several studies sits at the top of the evidence pyramid.

How the five levels of evidence work. The level is assigned automatically from the abstract and can be wrong, so check the paper.

Read the paper

Related studies

Go deeper in Evidence Hub

Evidence Hub adds a study data sheet (design, sample size, evidence level, key numbers), an AI summary and a chat grounded in the paper's text.

Open this study Sign up free