University of Sussex
HS-1010_BMJ_The_Cost.pdf (101.81 kB)

The cost effectiveness strategies for management of urinary tract infections: results from a randomised controlled trial

Download (101.81 kB)
journal contribution
posted on 2023-06-08, 12:04 authored by David Turner, Paul Little, James Raftery, Sheila Turner, Helen Smith, Kate Rumsby, Mark Mullee
OBJECTIVE: To assess the cost effectiveness of different management strategies for urinary tract infections. DESIGN: Cost effectiveness analysis alongside a randomised controlled trial with a one month follow-up. SETTING: Primary care. PARTICIPANTS: 309 non-pregnant adult women aged 18-70 presenting with suspected urinary tract infection. INTERVENTIONS: Patients were randomised to five basic management approaches: empirical antibiotics, empirical delayed (by 48 hours) antibiotics, or targeted antibiotics based on either a high symptom score (two or more of urine cloudiness, smell, nocturia, dysuria), dipstick results (nitrite or leucocytes and blood), or receipt of a positive result on midstream urine analysis. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURE: Duration of symptoms and cost of care. RESULTS: Management with targeted antibiotics with midstream urine analysis was more costly over the period of one month. Costs for the midstream urine analysis and dipstick management groups were pound37 and pound35, respectively; these compared with pound31 for immediate antibiotics. Cost effectiveness acceptability curves suggested that if avoiding a day of moderately bad symptoms was valued at less than pound10, then immediate antibiotics is likely to be the most cost effective strategy. For values over pound10, targeted antibiotics with dipstick testing becomes the most cost effective strategy, though because of the uncertainty we can never be more than 70% certain that this strategy truly is the most cost effective. CONCLUSION: Dipstick testing with targeted antibiotics is likely to be cost effective if the value of saving a day of moderately bad symptoms is pound10 or more, but caution is required given the considerable uncertainty surrounding the estimates.


Publication status

  • Published

File Version

  • Published version






BMJ Publishing Group





Article number


Department affiliated with

  • Primary Care and Public Health Publications

Full text available

  • Yes

Peer reviewed?

  • Yes

Legacy Posted Date


First Open Access (FOA) Date


First Compliant Deposit (FCD) Date


Usage metrics

    University of Sussex (Publications)


    No categories selected