Evidence Hub

Searching for sexually transmitted infections by midstream urine pooling after exclusion of urinary tract infection: A cost-effectiveness analysis

María Jesús Castaño, Javier Guillem, J. Ripoll, D. Navarro, E. Albert

Diagnostic microbiology and infectious disease, 2025

200 participants · 6 citations

Abstract

We aimed to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of screening for sexually transmitted infections (STI), Chlamydia trachomatis, Neisseria gonorrhoeae, Mycoplasma genitalium, and Trichomonas vaginalis in patients with suspected urinary tract infection (UTI) but negative urine cultures, using a pooled sampling method. A cohort of 200 patients was analyzed. A decision tree model based on cost-effectiveness was used to evaluate the following five diagnostic strategies: (A) no screening;(B) screening only men;(C) screening only women;(D) screening men and women with high leukocyte counts (>70cells/µL);(E) screening all men and women. The pooling method reduced reagent testing costs by 75 %. The most cost-effective strategy was screening men and women with high leukocyte counts, yielding an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of 489.05euros. STI screening using pooled midstream urine samples in patients with suspected UTI and negative urine cultures is cost-effective, particularly when targeting individuals with high leukocyte counts. This approach optimizes resource use and improves early STI detection.

How strong is the evidence?

Evidence Hub reads this as a cohort study, done in people. Its evidence level is 3 of 5 (Moderate · trial / cohort / secondary analysis). Trials without a large randomized design, cohorts and secondary analyses give moderate evidence. Reported size: 200 participants or records.

How the five levels of evidence work. The level is assigned automatically from the abstract and can be wrong, so check the paper.

Read the paper

Related studies

Go deeper in Evidence Hub

Evidence Hub adds a study data sheet (design, sample size, evidence level, key numbers), an AI summary and a chat grounded in the paper's text.

Open this study Sign up free