Literature DB >> 6427486

Dipstick chemical urinalysis: an accurate cost-effective screening test.

A J Mariani, S Luangphinith, S Loo, A Scottolini, C V Hodges.   

Abstract

In a double-blind prospective study of 200 sequential urine specimens the sediment count of leukocytes in the centrifuged urine (white blood cells per high power field) was compared to a chamber count of leukocytes in uncentrifuged urine (white blood cells per microliter.). There was good correlation (coefficient of correlation 0.783, sensitivity 91.9 per cent, specificity 97.6 per cent and efficiency 96.6 per cent) between the more precise chamber count and the more commonly performed sediment count if the methodology of the sediment count was standardized. In a double-blind prospective study the results of the sediment count for leukocytes and erythrocytes were compared to the leukocyte esterase and hemoglobin dipstick results of urine specimens from 1,346 adults who underwent multiphasic screening. The dipsticks were found to be sensitive to physiologic limits for leukocytes and erythrocytes, with only 0.9 per cent false negative results for each. Formed elements in the urine not detectable by dipstick, such as casts and crystals, were present in 3 per cent of the specimens. Among patients who had significant pyuria, hematuria or formed elements not detectable by dipstick chemical urinalysis, no significant pathological condition was detected upon retrospective review. Because the chemical dipstick is not quantitative and because the sensitivity of the dipsticks resulted in many false positive findings compared to the sediment count (red and white blood cells 16.4 and 13.2 per cent, respectively) a protocol is offered in which results of screening urine specimens that are positive on dipstick culture would be confirmed by a properly performed microscopic urinalysis. This protocol as applied to an adult screening population would be an accurate, cost-effective method of urine testing.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  1984        PMID: 6427486     DOI: 10.1016/s0022-5347(17)49465-1

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


  8 in total

Review 1.  Haematuria.

Authors:  A G Rockall; A P Newman-Sanders; M A al-Kutoubi; J A Vale
Journal:  Postgrad Med J       Date:  1997-03       Impact factor: 2.401

2.  Microhaematuria in general practice: is urine microscopy misleading?

Authors:  A C Dowell; J P Britton
Journal:  Br J Gen Pract       Date:  1990-02       Impact factor: 5.386

3.  Importance of occult haematuria found at screening.

Authors:  C D Ritchie; E A Bevan; S J Collier
Journal:  Br Med J (Clin Res Ed)       Date:  1986-03-08

4.  Dipstick haematuria and bladder cancer in men over 60: results of a community study.

Authors:  J P Britton; A C Dowell; P Whelan
Journal:  BMJ       Date:  1989-10-21

Review 5.  [Hematuria in cases of bladder cancer].

Authors:  F Wawroschek; S Roth
Journal:  Urologe A       Date:  2003-02-25       Impact factor: 0.639

6.  Ascorbic acid-A black hole of urine chemistry screening.

Authors:  Adriana Unic; Nora Nikolac Gabaj; Marijana Miler; Jelena Culej; Adrijana Lisac; Anita Horvat; Nada Vrkic
Journal:  J Clin Lab Anal       Date:  2018-02-25       Impact factor: 2.352

7.  National practice recommendations for hematuria: how to evaluate in the absence of strong evidence?

Authors:  Ronald Loo; Joel Whittaker; Violeta Rabrenivich
Journal:  Perm J       Date:  2009

8.  Urinary screening for detection of renal abnormalities in asymptomatic school children.

Authors:  Prince Parakh; Nisha K Bhatta; Om P Mishra; Pramod Shrestha; Sunil Budhathoki; Shankar Majhi; Arvind Sinha; Kanchan Dhungel; Rahul Prabhakar; Niladri Haldhar
Journal:  Nephrourol Mon       Date:  2012-06-20
  8 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.