Introduction: Management of candiduria remains controversial, mainly due to uncertainties of clinicians about diagnosis and treatment. In this study, we aimed to investigate diagnostic and therapeutic approaches of different specialists for candiduria.
Materials and Methods: An interview survey composed of 10 questions on candiduria was applied interactively to 429 randomly
selected clinicians in six different tertiary care hospitals. We compared the answers of infectious diseases (ID) specialists with the others. Data were evaluated by Statistical package for Social Sciences version 11. In Independent samples, t-test and chi square test were performed for data analysis.
Results: Out of the 429 participants, 91 (21.2%) were ID and 338 (78.8%) were specialists from other fi elds. For asymptomatic
patients with candiduria, 213 (49.6%) participants stated that a second culture was required. Compared to others, a higher number of ID specialists [76 (83.5%)] asked for a second culture. It was determined that ID specialists joining this study, whose mean length of experience after specialization was longer than the others, encountered a signifi cantly higher number of candiduria cases and referred current guidelines to use frequently compared to others.
Conclusion: Clinicians can treat candiduria largely, but have diffi culty in diagnosing. The fact that only 49.6% of all specialists included into the study order a second urine culture test shows that without differentiating colonization and contamination, half of them start therapies, which are likely to be unnecessary
