Evidence Hub

Clinical study of complicated urinary tract infection using 'The UTI Criteria (Draft Fourth Edition)': measurement methods for pyuria

Arakawa S, Nakano Y, Miura T, Shigemura K, Tanaka K, Fujisawa M

International journal of urology : official journal of the Japanese Urological Association, 2006

32 participants

Abstract

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the influences the change of the measurement method of pyuria from conventional centrifuged sediment to microchamber uncentrifuged urine for the results of evaluation of antimicrobial agents in clinical study against complicated urinary tract infections. From the viewpoint of international harmonization of judgement criteria, the recent method for counting white blood cells (WBC) in urine has changed from using uncentrifuged urine to using a microchamber in all countries.

METHODS: Targeted diseases were non-catheterized complicated urinary tract infection, and cefcapene pivoxil hydrochloride or levofloxacin were used as antimicrobial drug. Pyuria was examined using the counting chamber method, a quantitative method using uncentrifuged urine with a microchamber, and the sedimentation method.

RESULTS: Overall clinical efficacy in early evaluation by the two methods in measuring pyuria was evaluated as different in eight patients (7.3%). It was rated excellent in 63 (52.9%), moderate in 32 patients (26.9%) and poor in 24 (20.2%) with an efficacy rate of 79.8% using the counting chamber method, and excellent in 68 (57.1%), moderate in 27 (22.7%) and poor in 24 (20.2%) with an efficacy rate of 79.8% using the conventional sedimentation method

CONCLUSION: No significant difference was seen between the two methods of WBC count in urine.

How strong is the evidence?

Evidence Hub reads this as a randomized trial, done in people. Its evidence level is 2 of 5 (High · randomized trial). Randomized trials of a reasonable size are the strongest single-study design. Reported size: 32 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