Importance: Traditional approaches to practice guidelines frequently result in dissociation between strength of recommendation and quality of evidence. Objective: To create a clinical guideline for the diagnosis and management of urinary tract infections that addresses the gap between the evidence and recommendation strength. Evidence Review: This consensus statement and systematic review applied an approach previously established by the WikiGuidelines Group to construct collaborative clinical guidelines. In May 2023, new and existing members were solicited for questions on urinary tract infection prevention, diagnosis, and management. For each topic, literature searches were conducted up until early 2024 in any language. Evidence was reported according to the WikiGuidelines charter: clear recommendations were established only when reproducible, prospective, controlled studies provided hypothesis-confirming evidence. In the absence of such data, clinical reviews were developed discussing the available literature and associated risks and benefits of various approaches. Findings: A total of 54 members representing 12 countries reviewed 914 articles and submitted information relevant to 5 sections: prophylaxis and prevention (7 questions), diagnosis and diagnostic stewardship (7 questions), empirical treatment (3 questions), definitive treatment and antimicrobial stewardship (10 questions), and special populations and genitourinary syndromes (10 questions). Of 37 unique questions, a clear recommendation could be provided for 6 questions. In 3 of the remaining questions, a clear recommendation could only be provided for certain aspects of the question. Clinical reviews were generated for the remaining questions and aspects of questions not meeting criteria for a clear recommendation. Conclusions and Relevance: In this consensus statement that applied the WikiGuidelines method for clinical guideline development, the majority of topics relating to prevention, diagnosis, and treatment of urinary tract infections lack high-quality prospective data and clear recommendations could not be made. Randomized clinical trials are underway to address some of these gaps; however further research is of utmost importance to inform true evidence-based, rather than eminence-based practice.

COVID-19 has infected millions of people across the globe, leading to hundreds of thousands of deaths. Currently, there are no vaccines available for COVID-19, and the most effective way to curb its spread is to follow preventive practices. The present study aimed to assess the extent of adoption of preventive practices among the general population in India. A web-based cross-sectional survey was carried out recruiting 964 participants from all over India through purposive sampling. A pre-validated questionnaire consisting of 37 questions was used to collect data. Items 1A to 18A covered various preventive practices and items 1B to 19B covered reasons for not following those preventive practices. Descriptive statistics, chi-square tests, t-tests and one-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) were conducted. Most participants reported taking precautions such as wearing masks (91.80%), covering both nose and mouth (79.14%) and avoiding hand shaking (83.40%). However, practices like following social distancing in public places (51.76%) and workplace (51.04%), frequent hand washing/sanitising (63.59%) and washing hands for at least 20 seconds (45.44%) were less commonly observed. Participants failed to follow social distancing because of overcrowding and lack of space. They also found it cumbersome to wash hands multiple times. Female participants and people residing in metropolitan and small cities were fairly doing well in following preventive practices. The study helped in identifying the glitches in following various preventive practices against COVID-19 during unlock phase and reasons for the failure to perform these practices.

Preventive practices are the mainstay to mitigate the spread of the COVID-19 pandemic. We tried to assess the self-reported adherence of our participants to the already known preventive practices. Furthermore, we tried to determine whether the non-compliance to specific preventive practices was associated with the acquisition of the infection or not. We enrolled 379 healthcare workers, hospital staff, and their family members who were tested for COVID-19 by reverse transcription-polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR) in an outpatient clinic. Socio-demography and the infection prevention practices of the individuals were recorded in a preformed questionnaire. Statistical analysis was performed to find out the statistical association between these factors and the RT-PCR results. Adjusted and unadjusted odds ratios were determined to find out the degree of protection provided by each of the preventive practices concerning the development of the disease. Social distancing (p<0.001), hand hygiene (p<0.001), ensuring N-95 mask fit check (p<0.001), and the use of alternative medications (p=0.002) were found to be protective. Resident doctors were at a lower risk of developing the disease as compared to the other healthcare workers (odds ratio: 0.39). The failure to practice the already known preventive practices is probably one of the most important factors in the progression of the COVID-19 pandemic. Adherence to these practices is the intervention of choice to reduce disease transmission in the current scenario.

: With the rise in total joint arthroplasties, prosthetic joint infections (PJIs) have become a significant complication, leading to high morbidity. The causative organisms of PJIs vary by region, and the rates of drug-resistant organisms are growing, thus complicating the initial empiric choice of antibiotics. This retrospective study analyzed records of patients with orthopedic implants and intraoperative tissue samples sent for sonication and culture at a tertiary care hospital in India. The most common organism was Staphylococcus aureus (14 out of 86 bacterial isolates, 16.3%), followed by Pseudomonas aeruginosa (12 out of 86, 13.9%), and both Staphylococcus epidermidis and Klebsiella pneumoniae (11 each out of 86, 12.8%). There was a high prevalence of multidrug-resistant organisms, and 35% of the gram-negative organisms were carbapenem resistant. Our study reveals that in our setting, PJIs are chiefly driven by multidrug resistant gram-negative bacteria.