Comparing Urine Analysis and Urine Dipstick Tests Used in the Diagnosis of Renal Injury in Children With Blunt Abdominal Trauma in Shiraz, Iran

Electronic Physician Pub Date : 2021-09-25 DOI:10.19082/7848
Robab Sadegh, Somaye Mohebinejad, Razieh Sadat Mouavi-Roknabadi, Ali Ariafar, A. Dehbozorgi, M. Sharifi
{"title":"Comparing Urine Analysis and Urine Dipstick Tests Used in the Diagnosis of Renal Injury in Children With Blunt Abdominal Trauma in Shiraz, Iran","authors":"Robab Sadegh, Somaye Mohebinejad, Razieh Sadat Mouavi-Roknabadi, Ali Ariafar, A. Dehbozorgi, M. Sharifi","doi":"10.19082/7848","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Background: Blunt abdominal trauma (BAT) is the most common cause of abdominal injury and is responsible for renal injury in children. Urine dipstick is used in various clinical conditions, and its use in the diagnosis of microscopic hematuria is very common in adults, but its efficacy in children with BAT is unclear. Objective: To determine the accuracy of urine dipstick test and compare it with microscopic urine analysis (UA) in predicting urinary system injury. Methods: This prospective cross-sectional study was conducted on children with BAT who were referred to the Acute Care II of the Emergency Medicine Department of Shiraz Namazi Hospital in south of Iran (April–October 2018). The results of the urine dipstick test were compared with the results of UA, abdominal computed tomography (CT) scan as the gold standard, and the point-of-care ultrasound (POCUS). The diagnostic tests (sensitivity, specificity, positive and negative predictive values, positive and negative likelihood ratios, and accuracy) were calculated. Results: A total of 380 patients were enrolled, with a mean ± standard deviation age of 6.3 ± 3.45 years. We obtained a sensitivity, specificity, and accuracy of 71.43% (95% CI, 41.90–91.61), 96.99% (95% CI, 94.69– 98.49), and 96.05% (95% CI, 93.57–97.77), respectively, with a negative predictive value (NPV) of 98.89% (95% CI, 97.48–99.51) for the dipstick test in comparison with UA. In comparing the results of the dipstick and UA tests with CT scan, no difference was found in terms of sensitivity (P = 0.35), specificity (P = 0.65), accuracy (P = 0.72), and area under the curve (P = 0.97). Conclusion: Due to no difference in diagnostic values between the urine dipstick and UA tests, dipstick can be considered as an alternative means of UA in the management algorithm of pediatric BAT. Also, with higher specificity and NPV of the dipstick test in comparison with the UA test, based on the negative results of dipstick, hematuria can be ruled out in children with BAT.","PeriodicalId":11603,"journal":{"name":"Electronic Physician","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2021-09-25","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Electronic Physician","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.19082/7848","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

Background: Blunt abdominal trauma (BAT) is the most common cause of abdominal injury and is responsible for renal injury in children. Urine dipstick is used in various clinical conditions, and its use in the diagnosis of microscopic hematuria is very common in adults, but its efficacy in children with BAT is unclear. Objective: To determine the accuracy of urine dipstick test and compare it with microscopic urine analysis (UA) in predicting urinary system injury. Methods: This prospective cross-sectional study was conducted on children with BAT who were referred to the Acute Care II of the Emergency Medicine Department of Shiraz Namazi Hospital in south of Iran (April–October 2018). The results of the urine dipstick test were compared with the results of UA, abdominal computed tomography (CT) scan as the gold standard, and the point-of-care ultrasound (POCUS). The diagnostic tests (sensitivity, specificity, positive and negative predictive values, positive and negative likelihood ratios, and accuracy) were calculated. Results: A total of 380 patients were enrolled, with a mean ± standard deviation age of 6.3 ± 3.45 years. We obtained a sensitivity, specificity, and accuracy of 71.43% (95% CI, 41.90–91.61), 96.99% (95% CI, 94.69– 98.49), and 96.05% (95% CI, 93.57–97.77), respectively, with a negative predictive value (NPV) of 98.89% (95% CI, 97.48–99.51) for the dipstick test in comparison with UA. In comparing the results of the dipstick and UA tests with CT scan, no difference was found in terms of sensitivity (P = 0.35), specificity (P = 0.65), accuracy (P = 0.72), and area under the curve (P = 0.97). Conclusion: Due to no difference in diagnostic values between the urine dipstick and UA tests, dipstick can be considered as an alternative means of UA in the management algorithm of pediatric BAT. Also, with higher specificity and NPV of the dipstick test in comparison with the UA test, based on the negative results of dipstick, hematuria can be ruled out in children with BAT.
伊朗设拉子地区钝性腹部创伤儿童肾损伤诊断中的尿液分析与尿试纸试验比较
背景:钝性腹部创伤(BAT)是腹部损伤最常见的原因,也是儿童肾损伤的原因。尿检尺用于各种临床条件,在成人中用于镜下血尿的诊断非常常见,但在患有BAT的儿童中其疗效尚不清楚。目的:确定尿量尺测试的准确性,并将其与尿液显微镜分析(UA)进行比较,以预测泌尿系统损伤。方法:这项前瞻性横断面研究针对的是被转诊至伊朗南部Shiraz Namazi医院急诊医学科急性护理II的BAT儿童(2018年4月至10月)。将尿检尺测试的结果与UA、作为金标准的腹部计算机断层扫描(CT)和护理点超声(POCUS)的结果进行比较。计算诊断测试(敏感性、特异性、阳性和阴性预测值、阳性和阳性可能性比以及准确性)。结果:共有380名患者入选,平均±标准差年龄为6.3±3.45岁。我们获得的敏感性、特异性和准确性分别为71.43%(95%CI,41.90-91.61)、96.99%(95%CI,94.69-98.49)和96.05%,在敏感性(P=0.35)、特异性(P=0.65)、准确性(P=0.72)和曲线下面积(P=0.97)方面没有差异。此外,与UA测试相比,试纸测试具有更高的特异性和NPV,基于试纸的阴性结果,可以排除BAT儿童的血尿。
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
6
审稿时长
10 weeks
×
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