PubMed · 10326574
The source did not provide an abstract. Follow the original record for more information.
Explore connections, maps & timelines
J T Hart. 1998-05-23. Screening for urinary abnormalities.. https://doi.org/10.1016/s0140-6736(05)61162-2
Cite the original work for its findings. Save a collection to share your selection of sources.
KEEP EXPLORING
Explore the source record for details and available documents.
OBJECTIVE: To determine the sensitivity, specificity, and positive and negative predictive values of an enzymatic urine screening test for diagnosing bacteriuria in pregnancy. METHODS: Clean-catch midstream urine samples were collected from 383 women who had routine prenatal screening for bacteriuria. Sensitivity, specificity, and positive and negative predictive values for each screening test (enzyme activity, nitrites or leukocytes on dipstick, and bacteria or pyuria on microscopic examination) were estimated using urine culture as the criterion standard. Urine cultures were considered positive if they grew 10(4) colony-forming units of a single uropathogen. Standard deviations used to calculate 95% confidence intervals were based on binomial distribution. A sample of 30 urine specimens was selected to evaluate interrater agreement using Cohen's kappa statistic. RESULTS: Five of 383 samples were contaminated, leaving 378 samples for evaluation. Thirty of 43 specimens with positive urine culture had positive enzyme activity. Of 335 samples with no growth, 150 had negative enzyme activity. Sensitivity, specificity, and positive and negative predictive values for the Uriscreen enzymatic screening test (Bard Patient Care Division, Murray Hill, NJ) were 70%, 45%, 14%, and 92%, respectively. Sensitivity of the Uriscreen was lower than that of bacteria alone. Interrater agreement for Uriscreen testing was high among the three testers (kappa =.86). CONCLUSION: The Uriscreen enzymatic screening test had inadequate sensitivity for rapid screening for bacteriuria in pregnancy.
Indwelling catheters are strongly associated with the development of bacteriuria, which can lead to significant morbidity in hospitalized patients. This report, a review of the literature, evaluates the infectious outcomes of patients with indwelling catheters to determine the precise clinical and economic impact of catheter-related infection. Statistical pooling was used to estimate the incidence of bacteriuria in hospitalized patients with indwelling catheters. In addition, the proportion of patients with catheter-related bacteriuria in whom symptomatic urinary tract infection and bacteremia will develop was estimated through quantitative synthesis of previous reports. Costs were estimated by using microcosting techniques. Of patients who have indwelling catheters for 2 to 10 days, bacteriuria is expected to develop in 26% (95% confidence interval [CI], 23% to 29%). Among patients with bacteriuria symptoms of urinary tract infection will develop in 24%, (95% CI, 16% to 32%), and bacteremia from a urinary tract source will develop in 3.6% (95% CI, 3.4% to 3.8%). Each episode of symptomatic urinary tract infection is expected to cost an additional $676, and catheter-related bacteremia is likely to cost at least $2836. Given the clinical and economic burden of urinary catheter-related infection, infection control professionals and hospital epidemiologists should use the latest infection control principles and technology to reduce this common complication.