This Article
Right arrow Full Text
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow P3Rs: Submit a response
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me when P3Rs are posted
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Right arrow Citation Map
Services
Right arrow E-mail this article to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Similar articles in PubMed
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Add to My File Cabinet
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrow reprints & permissions
Citing Articles
Right arrow Citing Articles via HighWire
Right arrow Citing Articles via CrossRef
Right arrow Citing Articles via Google Scholar
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Gorelick, M. H.
Right arrow Articles by Shaw, K. N.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by Gorelick, M. H.
Right arrow Articles by Shaw, K. N.
Related Collections
Right arrow Genitourinary Tract

PEDIATRICS Vol. 104 No. 5 November 1999, p. e54

ELECTRONIC ARTICLE:
Screening Tests for Urinary Tract Infection in Children: A Meta-analysis

Received Oct 12, 1998; accepted May 17, 1999.

Marc H. Gorelick* and Kathy N. ShawDagger , §

From the * Division of Emergency Medicine, A. I. duPont Hospital for Children, Wilmington, Delaware; the Dagger  Division of Emergency Medicine, Children's Hospital of Philadelphia, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania; and the § Department of Pediatrics and the   Center for Clinical Epidemiology and Biostatistics, University of Pennsylvania School of Medicine, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania.

Objective.  To review systematically and to summarize the existing literature regarding performance of rapid diagnostic tests for urinary tract infection (UTI) in children.

Design.  Systematic review and meta-analysis.

Methods.  Published articles reporting the performance of urine dipstick tests (leukocyte esterase [LE] and/or nitrite), Gram stain, or microscopic analysis of spun or unspun urine in the diagnosis of UTI in children <= 12 years of age. Articles were identified through a comprehensive MEDLINE search, and those articles meeting a priori inclusion criteria were selected. Eligibility criteria included the use of urine culture as the reference standard, independent comparison of urine culture with the results of one of the screening tests, definition of positive screening test results provided, only pediatric patients included or evaluable separately, and both gold standard and screening test performed on all patients. For each test, heterogeneity of reported sensitivity and specificity of all studies was determined. The subgroups of studies with similar definitions of UTI and age of study subjects were analyzed separately to account for some of the differences in reported results. When significant unexplained heterogeneity among studies precluded simple combining of results, a summary receiver-operator characteristic curve was fitted for each screening test, from which pooled estimates of true-positive rate (TPR; ie, sensitivity) and false-positive rate (FPR; 1-specificity) were calculated.

Primary Results.  A total of 1489 titles were identified by the MEDLINE search; 26 articles met all criteria for inclusion. There was significant heterogeneity among studies for nearly all tests for both TPR and FPR, which was explained only partially by the stringency of the definition of UTI or age of subjects studied. Based on the pooled estimates, the presence of any bacteria on Gram stain on an uncentrifuged urine specimen had the best combination of sensitivity (0.93) and FPR (0.05). Urine dipstick tests performed nearly as well, with a sensitivity of 0.88 for the the presence of either LE or nitrite and an FPR of 0.04 for the presence of both LE and nitrite. Pyuria had lower TPR and higher FPR: for presence of >5 white blood cells/high-power field in a centrifuged urine sample, the TPR was 0.67 and the FPR was 0.21, whereas for >10 white blood cells per mm3 in uncentrifuged urine, the TPR was 0.77 and the FPR was 0.11.

Conclusions.  Both Gram stain and dipstick analysis for nitrite and LE perform similarly in detecting UTI in children and are superior to microscopic analysis for pyuria.  Key words:  urinary tract infection, diagnostic tests, urinalysis, pyuria, bacteriuria, meta-analysis.




This article has been cited by other articles:


Home page
 JAMAHome page
P. H. Conway, A. Cnaan, T. Zaoutis, B. V. Henry, R. W. Grundmeier, and R. Keren
Recurrent Urinary Tract Infections in Children: Risk Factors and Association With Prophylactic Antimicrobials
JAMA, July 11, 2007; 298(2): 179 - 186.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

Home page
 Arch. Dis. Child. Fetal Neonatal Ed.Home page
R Marom, W Sakran, J Antonelli, Y Horovitz, Y Zarfin, A Koren, and D Miron
Quick identification of febrile neonates with low risk for serious bacterial infection: an observational study
Arch. Dis. Child. Fetal Neonatal Ed., January 1, 2007; 92(1): F15 - F18.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

Home page
 Arch Pediatr Adolesc MedHome page
A. R. Schroeder, T. B. Newman, R. C. Wasserman, S. A. Finch, and R. H. Pantell
Choice of Urine Collection Methods for the Diagnosis of Urinary Tract Infection in Young, Febrile Infants
Arch Pediatr Adolesc Med, October 1, 2005; 159(10): 915 - 922.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

Home page
 Emerg. Med. J.Home page
B. Martin and A. Ghosh
Negative urine analysis to exclude urinary tract infection
Emerg. Med. J., November 1, 2001; 18(6): 462 - 463.
[Full Text]

Home page
 Evid. Based Nurs.Home page
S. Wright
Review: both Gram stain and urine dipstick analysis were accurate in diagnosing urinary tract infection in children
Evid. Based Nurs., July 1, 2000; 3(3): 86 - 86.
[Full Text]