Effect of a Diagnostic Algorithm for Urinary Tract Infection on Appropriate Use of Antibiotics and Diagnostics in General Practice - a Cluster Randomized Trial
Trial Snapshot
- Phase
- Not Applicable
- Status
- Completed
- Sponsor
- University of Copenhagen
- Enrollment
- 1,550
- Locations
- 1
- Primary Endpoint
- Difference in appropriate primary choice of treatment in the two groups.
Study Overview
Brief Summary
The aim of this study is to investigate the effect of diagnostic algorithm for urinary tract infection (UTI) on appropriate prescribing of antibiotics and use of diagnostics for patients with symptoms of urinary tract infection consulting their general practitioner.
70 general practices participating in an observational study regarding UTI are randomized to either receiving a diagnostic algorithm or not receiving anything additional.
The study is observational on the patient level and interventional on the practice level.
Detailed Description
STUDY DESIGN AND SETTING Cluster randomized controlled single blinded study of a diagnostic aid in general practice RECRUITMENT OF GENERAL PRACTICES Recruitment of general practices was done through online advertisement in email newsletters for general practice, invitation by post of 200 practices and invitation of 44 general practices already participating in a medical audit project regarding UTI (ref til Gloria). Only practices in the Capital Region of Denmark could participate.
RANDOMIZATION AND BLINDING Randomization was performed using an online random number generator and an employee not part of the investigation team sent out the diagnostic algorithm to the intervention group. The practices were asked not to reveal their allocation to the investigators in case of contact. Allocation was concealed to the investigators until after analysis of the primary outcomes.
INTERVENTION AND CONTROLS The practices in the intervention group received a laminated diagnostic algorithm by post and got access to a smart-phone integrated web-page, which could calculate post-test probabilities based on pre-test probabilities and accuracy of diagnostic tests .The diagnostic algorithm consists of three parts, one about urine dipstick, one about point-of-care microscopy and one about urine culture . The practices were instructed, use of the algorithm was voluntary. Control practices did not receive a diagnostic algorithm and did not have access to the smart-phone integrated web-page.
RECRUITMENT OF PATIENTS The practices were told to register diagnostics and treatment on the first 20-40 patients presenting in general practice with symptoms of UTI regardless of age, sex and comorbidity. For each patient, the practice sent a urine sample to the microbiological department as reference.
INCLUSION AND EXCLUSION CRITERIA Inclusion criteria were all patients with symptoms of UTI who had not formerly participated in the study and where urinalysis was performed. The only exclusion criterion was acute admission to hospital.
Study Design
- Study Type
- Interventional
- Allocation
- Randomized
- Intervention Model
- Parallel
- Primary Purpose
- Diagnostic
- Masking
- Double (Investigator, Outcomes Assessor)
Eligibility Criteria
- Sex
- All
- Accepts Healthy Volunteers
- No
Inclusion Criteria
- •All patients presenting in general practice with symptoms of UTI who has not formerly participated in the study.
Exclusion Criteria
- •Acute admission to hospital.
Arms & Interventions
Algorithm for UTI
Practices in this groups receives a diagnostic algorithm for UTI by post
Intervention: Algorithm for UTI (Device)
Control
Practices in this group does not receive anything in addition to instructions in the observational registration.
Outcomes
Primary Outcomes
Difference in appropriate primary choice of treatment in the two groups.
Time Frame: 3 months
Difference in price of point-of-care diagnostics used in the two groups
Time Frame: 3 months
Secondary Outcomes
- Difference in appropriate choice of treatment on the day after consultation (day ) in the two groups(3 months)
- Difference in correct decision to treat on the day of consultation (day 1) in the two groups(3 months)
- Difference in appropriate final choice of treatment in the two groups.(3 months)
- Difference in appropriate choice of treatment on the day of consultation (day 1) in the two groups(3 months)
- Difference in correct decision to treat on the day after consultation (day 2) in the two groups(3 months)
- Number of diagnostics used in the two groups(3 months)
- Practice satisfaction with participation in the project in the two groups(4 months)
- Practice acceptance of the algorithm in the intervention group(4 months)
Investigators
Anne Holm
MD PhD-fellow
University of Copenhagen
