Literature DB >> 27980053

Performance of urinalysis tests and their ability in predicting results of urine cultures: a comparison between automated test strip analyser and flow cytometry in various subpopulations and types of samples.

Erlangga Yusuf1, Bruno Van Herendael1, Jef van Schaeren1.   

Abstract

AIMS: Results of urinalysis are available earlier than urine culture results. If urinalysis can predict results of culture, early decision can be made on treatment and whether urine samples should be cultured. This study sought to compare the performance of urinalysis tests by automated test strip analyser (nitrite and leucocyte esterase) with flow cytometry (bacteria and white cell count) in different subpopulations and types of samples.
METHODS: Consecutive urine samples (n=2351) from a population with a median age of 45 years, 37.2% men, were tested. Sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value and negative predictive value (NPV) of the tests were calculated using contingency tables. The gold standard was positive urine culture with cut-off >105 CFU/mL.
RESULTS: 14% of the cultures were positive (95.6% monomicrobial, 74.7% Enterobacteriaceae). Overall, nitrite test was the most specific (98.7%) but the least sensitive (43.2%). Bacteria count was the most sensitive (91.7%) and highly specific (87.5%). In infants <24 months, the sensitivity of bacteria count was reduced (86.1%), but specificity was high (95.9%). The specificity of nitrite was reduced in urine from the in-and-out procedure (81.9%). The sensitivity of bacteria count was reduced in bag specimens urine (83.3%) and in urine from indwelling catheter (84.7%). All tests showed a high NPV. The NPV of the combined flow cytometry tests was higher than those of automated test strip analyser (99.1% vs 97.4%).
CONCLUSIONS: Overall, the performance of urinalysis is excellent. Flow cytometry tests performed better than automated test strip analyser in ruling out urine to be cultured. Published by the BMJ Publishing Group Limited. For permission to use (where not already granted under a licence) please go to http://www.bmj.com/company/products-services/rights-and-licensing/.

Entities:  

Keywords:  BACTERIOLOGY; CELL COUNTING; INFECTIONS; URINE

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2016        PMID: 27980053     DOI: 10.1136/jclinpath-2016-204108

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Clin Pathol        ISSN: 0021-9746            Impact factor:   3.411


  3 in total

Review 1.  New and developing diagnostic technologies for urinary tract infections.

Authors:  Michael Davenport; Kathleen E Mach; Linda M Dairiki Shortliffe; Niaz Banaei; Tza-Huei Wang; Joseph C Liao
Journal:  Nat Rev Urol       Date:  2017-03-01       Impact factor: 14.432

2.  No need for a urine culture in elderly hospitalized patients with a negative dipstick test result.

Authors:  Zvi Shimoni; Vered Hermush; Joseph Glick; Paul Froom
Journal:  Eur J Clin Microbiol Infect Dis       Date:  2018-05-18       Impact factor: 3.267

Review 3.  Progress in Automated Urinalysis.

Authors:  Matthijs Oyaert; Joris Delanghe
Journal:  Ann Lab Med       Date:  2019-01       Impact factor: 3.464

  3 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.