Evidence Hub

Clinical prediction rules for childhood urinary tract infections: a cross-sectional study in ambulatory care

Boon HA, Verbakel JY, De Burghgraeve T, Bruel AVD

BJGP open, 2022

834 participants

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Diagnosing childhood urinary tract infections (UTIs) is challenging. Clinical prediction rules may help to identify children that require urine sampling. However, there is a lack of research to determine the accuracy of the scores in general practice.

AIM: To validate clinical prediction rules (UTI Calculator [UTICalc], A Diagnosis of Urinary Tract Infection in Young Children [DUTY], and Gorelick score) for paediatric UTIs in primary care.

DESIGN & SETTING: Post-hoc analysis of a cross-sectional study in 39 general practices and two emergency departments (EDs). The study took place in Belgium from March 2019-March 2020.

METHOD: Physicians recruited acutely ill children aged ≤18 years and sampled urine systematically for culture. Per rule, an apparent validation was performed, and sensitivities and specificities were calculated with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) per threshold in the target group. For the DUTY coefficient-based algorithm, a logistic calibration was performed and the area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUC) was calculated with 95% CI.

RESULTS: Of 834 children aged ≤18 years recruited, there were 297 children aged <5 years. The UTICalc and Gorelick score had high-to-moderate sensitivity and low specificity: UTICalc (≥2%) 75% and 16%, respectively; Gorelick (≥2 variables) 91% and 8%, respectively. In contrast, the DUTY score ≥5 points had low sensitivity (8%) but high specificity (99%). Urine samples would be obtained in 72%…

How strong is the evidence?

Evidence Hub reads this as a cross-sectional, done in people. Its evidence level is 4 of 5 (Low · observational). Observational designs can show an association but not prove cause. Reported size: 834 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