Evidence Hub

Urinary tract infections in internal medicine

García Viejo MA, Noguerado Asensio A, Grupo de Trabajo de las Infecciones Urinarias del Grupo de Trabajo de Enfermedades Infecciosas de la Sociedad Española de Medicina Interna

Revista clinica espanola, 2010

992 participants

Abstract

OBJECTIVES: Analysis of characteristics of patients in internal medicine (IM) hospital wards in Spain with the diagnosis of urinary tract infection (UTI).

PATIENTS AND METHODS: Observational, descriptive, retrospective study of a population of inpatients with UTI diagnosis (October-December, 2007). Recorded variables included personal data, risk factors for complicated UTI, diagnosis criteria, microbiological results and antibiotics used.

RESULTS: A total of 992 patients (61.8% women), from 57 hospitals, were recruited. Mean age was 75.3 years old (SD 16.5), with 18.1% from nursing homes and with some physical dependence in 53.5%. The majority (78.3 %) had some risk factors (diabetes mellitus 33.6%, vesical catheterization 24.1%). Non-specific UTI was the most frequent diagnosis (38.1%). UTI was diagnosed in 46%, based exclusively on urinary sediment alterations and/or positive cultures. E. coli was the most frequent pathogen (64.17%), with intermediate sensitivity or resistance of 22.8% to amoxicillin-clavunanic, 34.8% to levofloxacin and 40.6% to ciprofloxacin. Amoxicillin-clavulanic was the most used antibiotic (30.9%). UTI delayed hospital discharge in a 13.3%. Intrahospital-UTI was statistically more frequent (23%) with vesical catheterization (50.5 vs 16.2%) and mortality (3.4%) in older patients (81.2 vs. 75.1 years old.), in patients with P. aeruginosa cultures (11.8 vs 4.1%) and in those with urinary sepsis (41.4 vs 16.2%).

CONCLUSIONS: Patients in internal medicine…

How strong is the evidence?

Evidence Hub reads this as a cross-sectional, done in people. Its evidence level is 4 of 5 (Low · observational). Observational designs can show an association but not prove cause. Reported size: 992 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