Evidence Hub

Diagnostic test accuracy of dipstick urinalysis in clean catch urine for urinary tract infection in febrile infants presenting to emergency departments: a post-hoc analysis of the FIDO study

Clare Mills, E. Umana, Nishant Sharma, T. Waterfield

EClinicalMedicine, 2025

1,821 participants · 2 citations

Abstract

Summary Background Studies where urine is typically obtained via invasive methods, show dipstick urinalysis can accurately screen for urinary tract infection (UTI) in febrile infants under 90 days old. However, evidence is limited in settings where clean catch urine collection is standard practice. This study assessed the accuracy of dipstick for UTI in a prospective cohort of febrile infants presenting to UK and Ireland emergency departments, where clean catch is the predominant urine collection method. Methods Post-hoc analysis of the Febrile Infant Diagnostic Assessment and Outcome study, a prospective multicentre observational cohort study. Febrile infants ≤90 days old were recruited from 35 Paediatric Emergency Research in the UK and Ireland (PERUKI) sites (NCT05259683) between 6th July 2022 and the 31st August 2023. Accuracy of dipstick urinalysis testing for detecting UTI was reported with sensitivity, specificity and predictive values. Findings In this multicentre prospective study of 1821 febrile infants ≤90 days, point-of-care dipstick urinalysis was performed in 57.1% of cases. Diagnostic accuracy varied significantly by age, sex, and method of dipstick assessment. Sensitivity was lowest in neonates (≤28 days; 53.3%) and if dipsticks were user-inspected (57.1%), highlighting limitations in these subgroups. In contrast, automated dipstick testing in infants >28 days achieved high sensitivity (87.5%) and moderate specificity (73.4%) at a cut-off of ≥trace leukocytes…

How strong is the evidence?

Evidence Hub reads this as a secondary / pooled analysis, 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: 1,821 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