SavedAdd your journal

Journals / Türk Klinik Biyokimya Dergisi / 2017 / Cilt: 15 - Sayı: 2

Assessment of the Performance of Urinalysis at a Secondary Health Care Center

Bir İkinci Basamak Sağlık Merkezinde Tam İdrar Tetkikinin Performansının Değerlendirilmesi

İlker AKARKEN
Orçun ZORBOZAN
Nergiz ZORBOZAN
Pages
45–51
Publication Date
2022-11-05
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)

LR+ was calculated as 34,9 for nitrite and

📌 3 Key Takeaways

🎯
Objective & Hypothesis:Objective: Urine culture test (UCT), which is the gold-standard for urinary tract infections (UTI), requires higher cost, labour and time than complete urinalysis (CU).
📊
Key Findings & Data:Therefore, it is important to assess prediction performance of CU's for UCT.
💡
Conclusion & Impact:LR+ was calculated as 34,9 for nitrite and
🔬Design:Research Article
📍Scope:606 samples
⚙️Variables:Domain Parameters

Abstract

Objective: Urine culture test (UCT), which is the gold-standard for urinary tract infections (UTI), requires higher cost, labour and time than complete urinalysis (CU). Therefore, it is important to assess prediction performance of CU's for UCT. The aim of our study is to demonstrate performance of strip leukocyte, erythrocyte, nitrite, microscopic leukocyte and microscopic erythrocyte tests in relation with UCT. Material and Methods: Patients which had CU, UCT requests and UTI pre-diagnosis in Kemalpasa State Hospital Central Laboratory during 6 months’ period were included. Performance of strip leukocyte, erythrocyte, nitrite, microscopic leukocyte and erythrocyte tests was evaluated with reference to UCT. Sensitivity, specificity, PV+, PV-, LR+ and LR- values were calculated. Relationship between assessed tests and UCT was analysed by logistic-regression. Results: Of 606 samples with CU and UCT request on the same day, UCT positivity was not detected in 513 (84,6%). Sensitivity was highest for strip leukocyte (trace) (93,5%), and lowest for strip erythrocyte (3+) (25,8%), and specificity was highest for nitrite (98,2%) and lowest for strip leukocyte (trace) (51,2%). Highest PV+ was in nitrite (86,4%) and highest PV- was in microscopic leukocyte (97,4%) and strip leukocyte (trace) (97,8%) tests. LR+ was calculated as 34,9 for nitrite and

Özet

Amaç: İdrar yolu enfeksiyonu (İYE) tanısında altın standart olan idrar kültürü tam idrar tetkikine (TİT) göre yüksek maliyet, iş gücü ve zaman gerektirmektedir. Bu nedenle laboratuvarların kendi uyguladıkları TİT'in kültür sonucunu öngörebilme performansını değerlendirmeleri önemlidir. Çalışmamızın amacı laboratuvarımızda, idrar kültürü sonuçlarını referans alarak, strip ile değerlendirilen lökosit, eritrosit, nitrit ile mikroskobik olarak değerlendirilen lökosit ve eritrosit testlerinin performansını ortaya koymaktır. Gereç ve Yöntem: Kemalpaşa Devlet Hastanesi Merkez Laboratuvarı'nda 6 aylık dönemde idrar kültürü ve TİT yapılan İYE ön tanılı hastalar çalışmaya alındı. Kültür sonuçları referans alınarak strip ile değerlendirilen lökosit, eritrosit, nitrit ile mikroskobik olarak değerlendirilen lökosit ve eritrosit testlerinin performansı değerlendirildi. Duyarlılık, özgüllük, pozitif (PV+), negatif öngörü değeri (PV-), pozitif (LR+) ve negatif olabilirlik oranı (LR-) hesaplandı. Değerlendirilen testler ile kültür sonuçları arasındaki ilişki lojistik regresyon ile analiz edildi. Bulgular: Aynı gün kültür ve TİT çalışılan 606 örneğin 513'ünde (%84,6) üreme saptanmadı. Duyarlılık; en yüksek strip lökosit (eser) (%93,5), en düşük strip eritrosit (3+) (%25,8), özgüllük; en yüksek nitrit (%98,2), en düşük strip lökosit (eser) (%51,2) testlerinde bulundu. En yüksek PV+ değeri nitrit (86,4), PV- değeri strip lökosit (eser) (%97,8) ile mikroskobi lökosit (97,4) testlerinde bulundu. LR+ değeri nitrit testinde 34,9, diğer tüm testlerde

🔖

Cite This Article

AKARKEN, İ., ZORBOZAN, O., ZORBOZAN, N. (2022). Assessment of the Performance of Urinalysis at a Secondary Health Care Center. Türk Klinik Biyokimya Dergisi, Cilt: 15 - Sayı: 2, 45–51. https://ajindex.com/articles/634406

📄 Full Text PDF Viewer

📄

PDF görüntüleyici hazırlanıyor...

References (14)

  1. Nzalie RN-tuku, Gonsu HK, Koulla-shiro S. Bacterial Etiology and Antibiotic Resistance Profile of Community-Acquired Urinary Tract Infections in a Cameroonian City. Int J Microbiol 2016. Article ID 3240268, 6 pages
  2. Flores-Mireles AL, Walker JN, Caparon M, Hultgren SJ. Urinary tract infections: epidemiology, mechanisms of infection and treatment options. Nat Rev Microbiol 2015;13(5):269–84
  3. Walter E. Stamm, S. Ragnar Norrby. Urinary Tract Infections: Disease Panorama and Challenges. J Infect Dis 2001; 183 (Supplement_1): S1-4
  4. Foxman, B. Urinary tract infection syndromes. Occurrence, recurrence, bacteriology, risk factors, and disease burden. Infect Dis Clin North Am 2014;28:1–13
  5. Foxman B. Epidemiology of Urinary Tract Infections: Incidence, Morbidity, and Economic Costs. Am J Med 2002;113(Suppl 1A):S5-13
  6. Desai DJ, Gilbert B, McBride CA. Paediatric urinary tract infections: Diagnosis and treatment. Aust Fam Physician 2016;45(8):558-63
  7. Reinhard F, Ott U, Naber KG. The interaction of urinary tract infection and renal insufficiency. Int J Antimicrob Agents 2006;28(Suppl 1):S72-7
  8. Simmering JE, Tang F, Cavanaugh JE, Polgreen LA, Polgreen PM. The Increase in Hospitalizations for Urinary Tract Infections and the Associated Costs in the United States, 1998–2011. Open Forum Infect Dis 2017; 4 (1): ofw281
  9. Schmiemann G, Kniehl E, Gebhardt K, Matejczyk MM, Hummers-pradier E. The Diagnosis of Urinary Tract Infection. Dtsch Arztebl Int 2010;107(21):361 10. Hallander H, Hofmann W, Guder WG, eds. ECLM. European Urinalysis Guidelines. Scand J Clin Lab Invest 2000;60(suppl 231):1-96
  10. Chen Y, Hu Z-de, Deng A. Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Flow Cytometry in Urinary Tract Infection. Clin Chim Acta 2013;23(424):90-5
  11. Okada H, Sakai Y, Miyazaki S, Arakawa S, Hamaguchi Y, Kamidono S. Detection of Significant Bacteriuria by Automated Urinalysis Using Flow Cytometry. J Clin Microbiol 2000;38(8):2870-2
  12. Sterry-blunt RE, Randall KS, Doughton MJ, Aliyu SH, Enoch DA. Screening urine samples for the absence of urinary tract infection using the sediMAX automated microscopy analyser. J Med Microbiol 2015;64(6):605-9
  13. Kayalp D, Doğan K, Ceylan G, Senes M, Yucel D. Can routine automated urinalysis reduce culture requests? Clin Biochem 2013;46:1285-9
  14. Whiting P, Westwood M, Bojke L, et al. Clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of tests for the diagnosis and investigation of urinary tract infection in children: a systematic