Skip to content

Study · Measured the body's own peptide · 2015

1 result

A Prospective, Observational Pilot Study of the Use of Urinary Antimicrobial Peptides in Diagnosing Emergency Department Patients With Positive Urine Cultures.

Caterino JM, Hains DS, Camargo CA, Quraishi SA, Saxena V, Schwaderer AL

Academic emergency medicine : official journal of the Society for Academic Emergency Medicine16 Sept 2015Cited by 13 (Europe PMC)

Summary

The text of this summary is not shown here, because the article license does not allow reuse. Read it at the source (opens in a new tab)

Text rights: Publisher copyright. Results still quote short attributed sentences.

Results from this study1

No result from this study comes from a test of the peptide.

Natural levels measured1

These results measure the body's own peptide. Nobody was given the peptide. They are not evidence about taking it. They are left out of key results, evidence counts and charts.

  1. 01HumanEndogenous levelObservational studyOther

    In adult emergency department patients with suspected UTI, urinary LL‑37 was not significantly higher in positive than in negative urine cultures.

    In plain wordsIn adults with suspected urinary infection, the body's own LL‑37 in urine was not significantly higher when the urine culture was positive.

    Peptide
    LL-37
    Outcome
    No significant changeUrinary LL-37 in positive versus negative urine cultures
    Study

    n = 40

    Comparator
    Negative urine cultures
    Outcome group
    Infection and antimicrobial activity · Kidney and urinary

    Source sentences

    Summary
    LL-37 was not significantly higher in patients with positive urine culture.
    2 context sentences
    Summary · context
    This was a prospective, observational study of adult ED patients with suspected UTI.
    Summary · context
    Of 40 patients enrolled, 23 (58%) were ≥ 65 years, 25 were female (64%), and seven (17%) were nonwhite.

    This result measures the body's own LL-37. Nobody was given the peptide. It is not evidence about taking it.

AI wrote and checked these results. AI can make mistakes, so check important results against the source.

Version history

PepBank keeps every version of the data on this study. Status changes from Retraction Watch, Europe PMC and Crossref are listed with their source.

  1. Version 3Current

    11 Oct 2026, 00:50 UTC

    Study results updated

  2. Version 2

    9 Oct 2026, 03:03 UTC

    Study data updated · source update from Europe PMC

  3. Version 1

    9 Oct 2026, 02:57 UTC

    First added · source update from Europe PMC

Subjects

Terms as the source lists them.

PepBank is a research reference. Talk to a doctor before you use any peptide.