Journals / İnfeksiyon Dergisi / 2003 / Cilt: 17 - Sayı: 3

Evaluation of two procedures used in determining bacteriuria and pyuria

Bakteriyüri ve piyüri saptanmasında kullanılan iki yöntemin değerlendirilmesi

Pages
337–340
Publication Date
2022-10-17
DOI
—
🏛️Bibliographic metadata and full text access for this article are provided via DergiPark.
DergiPark Record ↗
✨

AI Summary & Key Takeaways

AI Insight
⚡ TL;DR(Too Long; Didn't Read)

As a result, although using dipsticks are easier and simpler than microscopic examination, it is better to use microscopic examination in order to choose the correct treatment in patient groups for whom empirical treatment is intended.

📌 3 Key Takeaways

🎯
Objective & Hypothesis:The aim of this study is to determine the specifity and sensitivity of the procedures used in determining bacteriuria and pyuria regarding the urine culture results.
📊
Key Findings & Data:In the Central Microbiology Laboratory of Gazi University Hospital midstream urine samples of 161 patients with pre-diagnosis of urinary tract infections were used in this study.
💡
Conclusion & Impact:As a result, although using dipsticks are easier and simpler than microscopic examination, it is better to use microscopic examination in order to choose the correct treatment in patient groups for whom empirical treatment is intended.
🔬Design:Research Article
📍Scope:Comprehensive Sample
⚙️Variables:Domain Parameters

Abstract

The aim of this study is to determine the specifity and sensitivity of the procedures used in determining bacteriuria and pyuria regarding the urine culture results. In the Central Microbiology Laboratory of Gazi University Hospital midstream urine samples of 161 patients with pre-diagnosis of urinary tract infections were used in this study. They were cultured using standard procedures. Bacteriuria and pyuria were evaluated with microscopic examination. Combur 10 Test M kits were used for leukocyte esterase (LE) and nitrite tests. In 24 (%14.9) of the cases growth was observed, in one case contamination was determined and in 136 (%84.5) of the cases no growth was observed. The sensitivity and specifity of the combination of LE and nitrite tests were 72.2% and 97.5%, respectively, while the sensitivity and specifity of the combination of determining pyuria was %95 and bacteriuria which is determined by Gram stain method was %95. It was observed that in the diagnosis of urinary tract infections, the microscopic examination of urine was more specific and sensitive than examining the urine by dipsticks. As a result, although using dipsticks are easier and simpler than microscopic examination, it is better to use microscopic examination in order to choose the correct treatment in patient groups for whom empirical treatment is intended.

Özet

Bu çalışmanın amacı; bakteriyüri ve piyüri saptama yöntemlerinin idrar kültür sonuçları esas alınarak duyarlılık ve özgüllük değerlerini saptamaktır. Çalışmaya Gazi Üniversitesi Tıp Fakültesi Merkez Mikrobiyoloji Laboratuvarı'na üriner sistem infeksiyonu ön tanısıyla gönderilen 161 hastaya ait orta akım idrar örneği alındı. Standart yöntemlerle kültürler ekildi. İdrarın mikroskopik incelemesiyle piyüri ve bakteriyüri değerlendirildi. Lökosit esteraz (LE) ve nitrit testi için Combur 10 Test M kiti (Boehringer, Mannheim) kullanıldı. Olguların 24'ünde (%14.9) üreme oldu, birinde (%0.6) kontaminasyon saptandı, 136 (%84.5) örnekte ise üreme olmadı. Lökosit esteraz ve nitrit testinin kombinasyonuyla duyarlılık ve özgüllük, sırasıyla, %72.2 ve %97.5 olarak bulunurken, piyüri ve Gram boyamayla bakteriyüri saptanması kombinasyonunun duyarlılık ve özgüllüğü ise, sırasıyla, %95 ve %95 olarak daha yüksek oranda bulundu. Üriner sistem infeksiyonunun tanısı için idrarın mikroskopik olarak incelenmesinin, dipstiklere göre daha duyarlı daha özgül olduğu saptandı. Sonuç olarak; idrar dipstiklerinin uygulanması mikroskopik incelemelere göre kolay ve çabuk olmasına karşın ampirik tedavi düşünülen hasta gruplarında daha doğru tedavi rejimi seçmek amacıyla mikroskopik idrar incelemesi yapılması uygun olacaktır

🔖

Cite This Article

KAÇMAZ, B., SULTAN, N. (2022). Evaluation of two procedures used in determining bacteriuria and pyuria. İnfeksiyon Dergisi, Cilt: 17 - Sayı: 3, 337–340. https://ajindex.com/articles/546606

📄 Full Text PDF Viewer

📄

PDF görüntüleyici hazırlanıyor...

References (12)

  1. Pappas PG. Laboratory in the diagnosis and management of urinary tract infections. Med Clin North Am1991; 75: 313- 25. Lenke RR, Van Dorsten JPV. The efficacy of the nitrite test and microscopic urinalysis in predicting urine culture results. Am J Obstet Gynecol1981; 140: 427-9.
  2. Blondeau JM, Yaschuk Y, Galenzoski P, et al. Evaluation of the Cult-Dip Plus dip slide method for urinary tract infection. J Clin Pathol1995;48: 710-3.
  3. Graninger W, Fleischmann D, Schneeweiss B, Aram L, Stockenhuber F. Rapid screening for bacteriuria in pregnancy.Infection 1992; 20: 9-11. Stamm WE. Measurement of pyuria and its relation to bacteriuria. Am J Med1983; 75: 53-8. Stevens M. Screening urines for bacteriuria. Med Lab Sci1989; 46: 194-206.
  4. Hooton TM, Stamm WE. Diagnosis and treatment of uncomplicated urinary tract infection. Infect Dis Clin North Am1997; 11: 551-81.
  5. Dalton MT, Comeau S, Rainnie B, Lambert K, Forward KR. A comparison of the API Uriscreen with the Vitek urine identification-3 and theleukocyte esterase or nitrite strip as a screening test for bacteriuria. Diagn Microbiol Infect Dis1993; 16: 93-7.
  6. Robertson AW, Duff P. The nitrite and leukocyte esterase tests for the evaluation of asymtomatic bacteriuria in obstetric patients. ObstetGynecol1988; 71: 878-81.
  7. Mills SJ, Ford M, Gould FK, Burton S, Neal DE. Screening for bacteriuria in urological patients using reagent strips. Br J Urol1992; 70: 314-7.
  8. Millar L, Debuque L, Leialoha C, Grandinetti A, Killeen J. Rapid enzymatic urine screening test to detect bacteriuria in pregnancy. ObstetGynecol2000; 95: 601-4.
  9. Hagay Z, Levy R, Miskin A, Milman D, Sharabi H, Insler V. Uriscreen, a rapid enzymatic urine screening test: Useful predictor of significantbacteriuria in pregnancy. Obstet Gynecol1996; 87: 410-3.
  10. Acar NS, Kuzucu Ç, Kabakcıoğlu M, Üstün C.Üriner sistem enfeksiyonlarında mikrobiyolojik değerlendirme ve mikroorganizmaların dağılımının irdelenmesi. Mikrobiyol Bült1999; 33: 119-26.
  11. Özsüt H, Çalangu S. İdrar yolu infeksiyonları. Topçu-Wilke A, Söyletir G, Doğanay M, ed. İnfeksiyon Hastalıkları’nda. Ankara: Nobel Tıp Kitabevi, 1996: 921-6.
  12. McNeeley SG, Baselski VS, Ryan GM. An evaluation of two rapid bacteriuria screening procedures. Obstet Gynecol1987; 69: 550-3.