Data from: Prospective, observational study comparing automated and visual point-of-care urinalysis in general practice

Objective Point-of-care testing (POCT) urinalysis might reduce errors in (subjective) reading, registration and communication of test results, and might also improve diagnostic outcome and optimise patient management. Evidence is lacking. In the present study, we have studied the analytical performance of automated urinalysis and visual urinalysis compared with a reference standard in routine general practice. Setting The study was performed in six general practitioner (GP) group practices in the Netherlands. Automated urinalysis was compared with visual urinalysis in these practices. Reference testing was performed in a primary care laboratory (Saltro, Utrecht, The Netherlands). Primary and secondary outcome measures Analytical performance of automated and visual urinalysis compared with the reference laboratory method was the primary outcome measure, analysed by calculating sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value (PPV) and negative predictive value (NPV) and Cohen's κ coefficient for agreement. Secondary outcome measure was the user-friendliness of the POCT analyser. Results Automated urinalysis by experienced and routinely trained practice assistants in general practice performs as good as visual urinalysis for nitrite, leucocytes and erythrocytes. Agreement for nitrite is high for automated and visual urinalysis. κ's are 0.824 and 0.803 (ranked as very good and good, respectively). Agreement with the central laboratory reference standard for automated and visual urinalysis for leucocytes is rather poor (0.256 for POCT and 0.197 for visual, respectively, ranked as fair and poor). κ's for erythrocytes are higher: 0.517 (automated) and 0.416 (visual), both ranked as moderate. The Urisys 1100 analyser was easy to use and considered to be not prone to flaws. Conclusions Automated urinalysis performed as good as traditional visual urinalysis on reading of nitrite, leucocytes and erythrocytes in routine general practice. Implementation of automated urinalysis in general practice is justified as automation is expected to reduce human errors in patient identification and transcribing of results

Eenduidige richtlijnen voor de eerste en tweede lijn inzake urineweginfecties

The Dutch College of General Practitioners (NHG) practice guideline 'Urinary tract infections' intended for primary health care and the Dutch Working Party on Antibiotic Policy (SWAB) practice guideline 'Antimicrobial therapy in complicated urinary tract infections' intended for specialists in secondary care, were reviewed together. - In the NHG guideline the differentiation between 'complicated' and 'uncomplicated' urinary tract infections has been replaced by categorisation into age, sex, risk group and the presence of fever, or invasion of tissues.- If urinary tract infection has been diagnosed, a dip slide test can be used to determine resistance.- The guidelines recommend the most narrow-spectrum antibiotic to reduce further increase in antimicrobial resistance.- A chapter about women with recurrent urinary tract infections has been added to the SWAB guideline. Amongst other things, the chapter provides information on the prescription of prophylactic lactobacillus in secondary car

Prospective, observational study comparing automated and visual point-of-care urinalysis in general practice

OBJECTIVE: Point-of-care testing (POCT) urinalysis might reduce errors in (subjective) reading, registration and communication of test results, and might also improve diagnostic outcome and optimise patient management. Evidence is lacking. In the present study, we have studied the analytical performance of automated urinalysis and visual urinalysis compared with a reference standard in routine general practice. SETTING: The study was performed in six general practitioner (GP) group practices in the Netherlands. Automated urinalysis was compared with visual urinalysis in these practices. Reference testing was performed in a primary care laboratory (Saltro, Utrecht, The Netherlands). PRIMARY AND SECONDARY OUTCOME MEASURES: Analytical performance of automated and visual urinalysis compared with the reference laboratory method was the primary outcome measure, analysed by calculating sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value (PPV) and negative predictive value (NPV) and Cohen's κ coefficient for agreement. Secondary outcome measure was the user-friendliness of the POCT analyser. RESULTS: Automated urinalysis by experienced and routinely trained practice assistants in general practice performs as good as visual urinalysis for nitrite, leucocytes and erythrocytes. Agreement for nitrite is high for automated and visual urinalysis. κ's are 0.824 and 0.803 (ranked as very good and good, respectively). Agreement with the central laboratory reference standard for automated and visual urinalysis for leucocytes is rather poor (0.256 for POCT and 0.197 for visual, respectively, ranked as fair and poor). κ's for erythrocytes are higher: 0.517 (automated) and 0.416 (visual), both ranked as moderate. The Urisys 1100 analyser was easy to use and considered to be not prone to flaws. CONCLUSIONS: Automated urinalysis performed as good as traditional visual urinalysis on reading of nitrite, leucocytes and erythrocytes in routine general practice. Implementation of automated urinalysis in general practice is justified as automation is expected to reduce human errors in patient identification and transcribing of results

Userfriendliness POCT urine analysers Dryad 20JUL2016

raw dat

POCT urine analysers Dryad 20JUL2016

raw dat