Evidence Hub

Prevalence of "low-count" bacteriuria in female urinary incontinence versus continent female controls: a cross-sectional study

Walsh CA, Siddins A, Parkin K, Mukerjee C, Moore KH

International urogynecology journal, 2011

213 participants

Abstract

INTRODUCTION AND HYPOTHESIS: Older studies suggesting an association between detrusor overactivity and bacteriuria used an outdated microbiological threshold. We hypothesised that bacteriuria ≥10(3) CFU/ml would be more prevalent in women with urinary incontinence than continent controls.

METHODS: A prospective, cross-sectional study of prevalence of bacteriuria ≥10(3) colony-forming units (CFU)/ml on catheter specimens. Sample estimates suggested 62 women per arm would yield 80% power. Multivariate regression analysis was performed using risk factors including, age, diabetes, menopausal status, sexual activity and cystocele.

RESULTS: Among 213 participants, bacteriuria ≥10(3) CFU/ml was more prevalent in incontinent women than continent controls (odds ratio [OR] 4.06; p = 0.036). Two thirds of bacteriuric specimens grew "low-count" bacteriuria. On multivariate analysis, only cystocele ≥ grade II was independently associated with bacteriuria (p = 0.025). On sub-analysis by diagnosis, the only significant finding was with bladder oversensitivity (OR 13.8; p = 0.0017).

CONCLUSIONS: Bacteriuria, including "low-count" bacteriuria, is more prevalent in urinary incontinence when compared to continent female controls.

How strong is the evidence?

Evidence Hub reads this as a case-control, done in people. Its evidence level is 4 of 5 (Low · observational). Observational designs can show an association but not prove cause. Reported size: 213 participants or records.

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