[Gram stain and dipstick as diagnostic methods for urinary tract infection in febrile infants].

Anales Espanoles De Pediatria Pub Date : 2000-12-01
Benito Fernández J, García Ribes A, Trebolazabala Quirante N, Mintegi Raso S, Vázquez Ronco M, Urra Zalbidegoitia E
{"title":"[Gram stain and dipstick as diagnostic methods for urinary tract infection in febrile infants].","authors":"Benito Fernández J,&nbsp;García Ribes A,&nbsp;Trebolazabala Quirante N,&nbsp;Mintegi Raso S,&nbsp;Vázquez Ronco M,&nbsp;Urra Zalbidegoitia E","doi":"","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Aim: </strong>To compare urinary gram staining and dipstick for the detection of urinary tract infection (UTI)in febrile infants.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>Prospective study of 175 febrile infants aged 124 months. In all infants, a urine specimen was analyzed to detect UTI. The dipstick test was used to detect leukocytes and nitrites and samples were taken for gram staining and urine culture. Urine was obtained by urethral catheterization. Positive urine results were defined as 50.000 colony forming units per millimeter of urinary tract pathogen.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>The mean age was 9.8 months (SD: 6.64). Urine culture was positive in 87 patients (49.5%). Diagnosis of UTI was confirmed in 91 patients (51.9%), of whom 74 were admitted for clinically suspected pyelonephritis (81.3%). Gram stain had the highest specificity (98.9%) and pyuria the highest sensitivity (90.8%). Better results were obtained using the combination of dipstick and Gram stain with a sensitivity of 93.1%, specificity of 98.4%, positive predictive value of 98.5% and negative predictive value of 92.5%.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Urinary Gram stain appears to be more reliable than dipstick in detecting UTI in febrile infants but the results of both tests should be interpreted together.</p>","PeriodicalId":7778,"journal":{"name":"Anales Espanoles De Pediatria","volume":"53 6","pages":"561-6"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2000-12-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Anales Espanoles De Pediatria","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Aim: To compare urinary gram staining and dipstick for the detection of urinary tract infection (UTI)in febrile infants.

Methods: Prospective study of 175 febrile infants aged 124 months. In all infants, a urine specimen was analyzed to detect UTI. The dipstick test was used to detect leukocytes and nitrites and samples were taken for gram staining and urine culture. Urine was obtained by urethral catheterization. Positive urine results were defined as 50.000 colony forming units per millimeter of urinary tract pathogen.

Results: The mean age was 9.8 months (SD: 6.64). Urine culture was positive in 87 patients (49.5%). Diagnosis of UTI was confirmed in 91 patients (51.9%), of whom 74 were admitted for clinically suspected pyelonephritis (81.3%). Gram stain had the highest specificity (98.9%) and pyuria the highest sensitivity (90.8%). Better results were obtained using the combination of dipstick and Gram stain with a sensitivity of 93.1%, specificity of 98.4%, positive predictive value of 98.5% and negative predictive value of 92.5%.

Conclusions: Urinary Gram stain appears to be more reliable than dipstick in detecting UTI in febrile infants but the results of both tests should be interpreted together.

[革兰氏染色法和试纸法诊断发热婴儿尿路感染]。
目的:比较尿革兰氏染色法与试纸法在婴幼儿热尿路感染检测中的应用价值。方法:对175例124月龄发热婴儿进行前瞻性研究。在所有婴儿中,分析尿液标本以检测尿路感染。用试纸法检测白细胞和亚硝酸盐,取革兰氏染色和尿液培养。通过导尿获得尿液。尿阳性定义为每毫米尿路病原体菌落形成单位为50,000。结果:平均年龄9.8个月(SD: 6.64)。尿培养阳性87例(49.5%)。91例(51.9%)确诊为UTI,其中74例因临床疑似肾盂肾炎入院(81.3%)。革兰氏染色的特异性最高(98.9%),脓尿的敏感性最高(90.8%)。试纸与革兰氏染色联合检测结果较好,敏感性为93.1%,特异性为98.4%,阳性预测值为98.5%,阴性预测值为92.5%。结论:在检测发热婴儿尿路感染方面,尿革兰氏染色似乎比试纸更可靠,但两者的结果应一起解释。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信