Literature DB >> 20018314

Dipstick pseudohematuria: unnecessary consultation and evaluation.

Pravin K Rao1, Tianming Gao, Marc Pohl, J Stephen Jones.   

Abstract

PURPOSE: While many primary care providers advocate routine screening urinalyses, a heme positive dipstick test often leads to a false-positive diagnosis of hematuria, or pseudohematuria. Thus, American Urological Association guidelines recommend urological evaluation for asymptomatic patients only for at least 3 red blood cells per high power field in 2 of 3 microscopic urinalyses. We determined the percentage of patients referred for asymptomatic hematuria undergoing unnecessary consultation and studies.
MATERIALS AND METHODS: Patients were retrospectively identified if seen for initial consultation associated with CPT 599.7X, hematuria. Among these patients those referred for evaluation of asymptomatic nonmacroscopic hematuria were identified, and referral patterns, ancillary tests, procedures and findings were examined.
RESULTS: Of 320 new patient visits with diagnosis code 599.7X, 91 were referred for asymptomatic, nonmacroscopic hematuria. Of these patients only 37 (41%) had microscopic urinalyses before referral and only 22 (24%) had microscopic urinalyses showing 3 or more red blood cells per high power field. Of the 69 patients referred without confirmed microhematuria approximately 25% had true microhematuria and 15 with no true hematuria had undergone imaging before referral. The Medicare reimbursement value for the evaluation of these 69 patients was $44,901. Of these patients 35 underwent cystoscopy and only 1 (with true microhematuria) had a malignancy.
CONCLUSIONS: Positive dipstick heme tests should always be confirmed by microscopic urinalysis before urological referral or evaluation. Education of referring physicians regarding the American Urological Association guidelines could possibly help limit costly and potentially harmful, unnecessary evaluation of patients without true microhematuria. Copyright 2010 American Urological Association. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2009        PMID: 20018314     DOI: 10.1016/j.juro.2009.10.049

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Urol        ISSN: 0022-5347            Impact factor:   7.450


  6 in total

1.  Performance Evaluation of Three URiSCAN Devices for Routine Urinalysis.

Authors:  Kiwoong Ko; Min-Jung Kwon; Seungho Ryu; Hee-Yeon Woo; Hyosoon Park
Journal:  J Clin Lab Anal       Date:  2015-08-24       Impact factor: 2.352

2.  The prevalence of microscopic hematuria in a cohort of women with pelvic organ prolapse.

Authors:  Nirmala Pillalamarri; Dara Shalom; Sharlene Sanidad; Meredith Akerman; Lawrence Lind; Harvey Winkler
Journal:  Int Urogynecol J       Date:  2014-07-01       Impact factor: 2.894

3.  In Reply.

Authors:  Christian Bolenz; Bernd Schröppel; Andreas Eisenhardt; Bernd J Schmitz-Dräger; Marc-Oliver Grimm
Journal:  Dtsch Arztebl Int       Date:  2019-03-08       Impact factor: 5.594

4.  Similar Neutrophil-Driven Inflammatory and Antibacterial Responses in Elderly Patients with Symptomatic and Asymptomatic Bacteriuria.

Authors:  Yanbao Yu; Martin D Zielinski; Melanie A Rolfe; Melissa M Kuntz; Heidi Nelson; Karen E Nelson; Rembert Pieper
Journal:  Infect Immun       Date:  2015-08-03       Impact factor: 3.441

5.  Evidence of dipstick superiority over urine microscopy analysis for detection of hematuria.

Authors:  Aurélien Bataille; Morgane Wetzstein; Alexandre Hertig; Sophie Vimont; Eric Rondeau; Pierre Galichon
Journal:  BMC Res Notes       Date:  2016-09-08

6.  Is Dipstick Urinalysis Screening Beneficial in Men with Lower Urinary Tract Symptoms?

Authors:  Franklin C Lowe; Martin C Michel; Jan M Wruck; Anna E Verbeek
Journal:  Adv Ther       Date:  2019-08-07       Impact factor: 3.845

  6 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.