Evidence Hub

Diagnostic accuracy of dipsticks for urinary tract infections in acutely hospitalised patients: a prospective population-based observational cohort study

L. H. Kristensen, R. Winther, Josefine Tvede Colding-Jørgensen, A. Pottegård, Henrik Nielsen, J. Bodilsen

BMJ evidence-based medicine, 2024

13 citations

Abstract

Objective To determine the added diagnostic value of dipsticks for urinary tract infections (UTI) in acutely hospitalised individuals. Design Prospective population-based cohort study. Setting North Denmark. Participants All adults (≥18 years) examined with dipsticks at emergency departments in North Denmark Region from September 20 through 23 October 2021. Main outcome measures UTI was defined as ≥1 symptom of new-onset frequency, dysuria or suprapubic tenderness combined with a positive urine culture. Positive dipsticks were defined as any reaction for leucocyte esterase and/or nitrite. Results Dipsticks were used in 1052/2495 (42%) of acutely hospitalised patients with a median age of 73 years (IQR 57–82) and 540 (51%) were female. Overall, 89/1052 (8%) fulfilled the UTI criteria and urine cultures were done in 607/1052 (58%) patients. Among patients examined with both dipstick and urine culture, sensitivity and specificity for UTI were 87% (95% CI 78% to 93%) and 45% (95% CI 41% to 50%). Positive and negative predictive values were 21% (95% CI 17% to 26%) and 95% (95% CI 92% to 98%), whereas positive and negative likelihood ratios were 1.58 (95% CI 1.41 to 1.77) and 0.30 (95% CI 0.18 to 0.51). Pretest probabilities of UTI ranged from 29% to 60% in participants with specific UTI symptoms with corresponding post-test probabilities of 35–69% if dipsticks were positive and 12–27% if dipsticks were negative. Results remained comparable if final clinical diagnosis was used as…

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.

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