Rapid tests and urine sampling techniques for the diagnosis of urinary tract infection (UTI) in children under five years: a systematic review

Background: Urinary tract infection (UTI) is one of the most common sources of infection in children under five. Prompt diagnosis and treatment is important to reduce the risk of renal scarring. Rapid, cost-effective, methods of UTI diagnosis are required as an alternative to culture. Methods: We conducted a systematic review to determine the diagnostic accuracy of rapid tests for detecting UTI in children under five years of age. Results: The evidence supports the use of dipstick positive for both leukocyte esterase and nitrite (pooled LR+ = 28.2, 95% CI: 17.3, 46.0) or microscopy positive for both pyuria and bacteriuria (pooled LR+ = 37.0, 95% CI: 11.0, 125.9) to rule in UTI. Similarly dipstick negative for both LE and nitrite (Pooled LR- = 0.20, 95% CI: 0.16, 0.26) or microscopy negative for both pyuria and bacteriuria (Pooled LR- = 0.11, 95% CI: 0.05, 0.23) can be used to rule out UTI. A test for glucose showed promise in potty-trained children. However, all studies were over 30 years old. Further evaluation of this test may be useful. Conclusion: Dipstick negative for both LE and nitrite or microscopic analysis negative for both pyuria and bacteriuria of a clean voided urine, bag, or nappy/pad specimen may reasonably be used to rule out UTI. These patients can then reasonably be excluded from further investigation, without the need for confirmatory culture. Similarly, combinations of positive tests could be used to rule in UTI, and trigger further investigation

Leukocyte counts in urine reflect the risk of concomitant sepsis in bacteriuric infants: A retrospective cohort study

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>When urine infections are missed in febrile young infants with normal urinalysis, clinicians may worry about the risk – hitherto unverified – of concomitant invasion of blood and cerebrospinal fluid by uropathogens. In this study, we determine the extent of this risk.</p> <p>Methods</p> <p>In a retrospective cohort study of febrile 0–89 day old infants evaluated for sepsis in an urban academic pediatric emergency department (1993–1999), we estimated rates of bacteriuric sepsis (urinary tract infections complicated by sepsis) after stratifying infants by urine leukocyte counts higher, or lower than 10 cells/hpf. We compared the global accuracy of leukocytes in urine, leukocytes in peripheral blood, body temperature, and age for predicting bacteruric sepsis. The global accuracy of each test was estimated by calculating the area under its receiver operating characteristic curve (AUC). Chi-square and Fisher exact tests compared count data. Medians for data not normally distributed were compared by the Kruskal-Wallis test.</p> <p>Results</p> <p>Two thousand two hundred forty-nine young infants had a normal screening dipstick. None of these developed bacteremia or meningitis despite positive urine culture in 41 (1.8%). Of 1516 additional urine specimens sent for formal urinalysis, 1279 had 0–9 leukocytes/hpf. Urine pathogens were isolated less commonly (6% vs. 76%) and at lower concentrations in infants with few, compared to many urine leukocytes. Urine leukocytes (AUC: 0.94) were the most accurate predictors of bacteruric sepsis. Infants with urinary leukocytes < 10 cells/hpf were significantly less likely (0%; CI:0–0.3%) than those with higher leukocyte counts (5%; CI:2.6–8.7%) to have urinary tract infections complicated by bacteremia (N = 11) or bacterial meningitis (N = 1) – relative risk, 0 (CI:0–0.06) [RR, 0 (CI: 0–0.02), when including infants with negative dipstick]. Bands in peripheral blood had modest value for detecting bacteriuric sepsis (AUC: 0.78). Cases of sepsis without concomitant bacteriuria were comparatively rare (0.8%) and equally common in febrile young infants with low and high concentrations of urine leukocytes.</p> <p>Conclusion</p> <p>In young infants evaluated for fever, leukocytes in urine reflect the likelihood of bacteriuric sepsis. Infants with urinary tract infections missed because of few leukocytes in urine are at relatively low risk of invasive bacterial sepsis by pathogens isolated from urine.</p

How does study quality affect the results of a diagnostic meta-analysis?

Background: The use of systematic literature review to inform evidence based practice in diagnostics is rapidly expanding. Although the primary diagnostic literature is extensive, studies are often of low methodological quality or poorly reported. There has been no rigorously evaluated, evidence based tool to assess the methodological quality of diagnostic studies. The primary objective of this study was to determine the extent to which variations in the quality of primary studies impact the results of a diagnostic meta-analysis and whether this differs with diagnostic test type. A secondary objective was to contribute to the evaluation of QUADAS, an evidence-based tool for the assessment of quality in diagnostic accuracy studies. Methods: This study was conducted as part of large systematic review of tests used in the diagnosis and further investigation of urinary tract infection (UTI) in children. All studies included in this review were assessed using QUADAS, an evidence-based tool for the assessment of quality in systematic reviews of diagnostic accuracy studies. The impact of individual components of QUADAS on a summary measure of diagnostic accuracy was investigated using regression analysis. The review divided the diagnosis and further investigation of UTI into the following three clinical stages: diagnosis of UTI, localisation of infection, and further investigation of the UTI. Each stage used different types of diagnostic test, which were considered to involve different quality concerns. Results: Many of the studies included in our review were poorly reported. The proportion of QUADAS items fulfilled was similar for studies in different sections of the review. However, as might be expected, the individual items fulfilled differed between the three clinical stages. Regression analysis found that different items showed a strong association with test performance for the different tests evaluated. These differences were observed both within and between the three clinical stages assessed by the review. The results of regression analyses were also affected by whether or not a weighting (by sample size) was applied. Our analysis was severely limited by the completeness of reporting and the differences between the index tests evaluated and the reference standards used to confirm diagnoses in the primary studies. Few tests were evaluated by sufficient studies to allow meaningful use of meta-analytic pooling and investigation of heterogeneity. This meant that further analysis to investigate heterogeneity could only be undertaken using a subset of studies, and that the findings are open to various interpretations. Conclusion: Further work is needed to investigate the influence of methodological quality on the results of diagnostic meta-analyses. Large data sets of well-reported primary studies are needed to address this question. Without significant improvements in the completeness of reporting of primary studies, progress in this area will be limited