Article

Diagnostic value and cost utility analysis for urine Gram stain and urine microscopic examination as screening tests for urinary tract infection.

Department of Laboratory Medicine, Faculty of Medicine, Chulalongkorn University, 10330 Bangkok, Thailand.
Urological Research (Impact Factor: 1.31). 07/2005; 33(3):220-2. DOI: 10.1007/s00240-004-0457-z
Source: PubMed

ABSTRACT The aim of this study was to evaluate the diagnostic properties of urine Gram stain and urine microscopic examination for screening for urinary tract infection (UTI), and to perform an additional cost utility analysis. This descriptive study was performed on 95 urine samples sent for urine culture to the Department of Microbiology, Faculty of Medicine, Chulalongkorn University. The first part of the study was to determine the diagnostic properties of two screening tests (urine Gram stain and urine microscopic examination). Urine culture was set as the gold standard and the results from both methods were compared to this. The second part of this study was to perform a cost utility analysis. The sensitivity of urine Gram stain was 96.2%, the specificity 93.0%, the positive predictive value 94.3% and the negative predictive value 95.2%. False positives occurred with a frequency of 7.0% and false negatives 3.8%. For the microscopic examination, the sensitivity was 65.4%, specificity 74.4%, positive predictive value 75.6% and negative predictive value 64.0%. False positives occurred with a frequency of 25.6% and false negatives 34.6%. Combining urine Gram stain and urine microscopic examination, the sensitivity was 98.1%, specificity 74.4%, positive predictive value 82.3% and negative predictive value 97.0%. False positives occurred with a frequency of 25.6% and false negatives 1.9%. However, the cost per utility of the combined method was higher than either urine microscopic examination or urine Gram stain alone. Urine Gram stain provided the lowest cost per utility. Economically, urine Gram stain is the proper screening tool for presumptive diagnosis of UTI.

6 Followers
 · 
332 Views
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Infection is a common complication seen in ICU patients. Given the correlation between infection and mortality in these patients, a rapid etiological diagnosis and the determination of antimicrobial resistance markers are of paramount importance, especially in view of today's globally spread of multi drug resistance microorganisms. This paper reviews some of the rapid diagnostic techniques available for ICU patients with infections. A narrative review of recent peer-reviewed literature (published between 1995 and 2014) was performed using as the search terms: Intensive care medicine, Microbiological techniques, Clinical laboratory techniques, Diagnosis, and Rapid diagnosis, with no language restrictions. The most developed microbiology fields for a rapid diagnosis of infection in critically ill patients are those related to the diagnosis of bloodstream infection, pneumonia -both ventilator associated and non-ventilator associated-, urinary tract infection, skin and soft tissue infections, viral infections and tuberculosis. New developments in the field of microbiology have served to shorten turnaround times and optimize the treatment of many types of infection. Although there are still some unresolved limitations of the use of molecular techniques for a rapid diagnosis of infection in the ICU patient, this approach holds much promise for the future.
    BMC Infectious Diseases 11/2014; 14(1):593. DOI:10.1186/s12879-014-0593-1 · 2.56 Impact Factor
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Microbiological confirmation of a urinary tract infection (UTI) takes 24-48 h. In the meantime, patients are usually given empirical antibiotics, sometimes inappropriately. We assessed the feasibility of sequentially performing a Gram stain and MALDI-TOF MS mass spectrometry (MS) on urine samples to anticipate clinically useful information. In May-June 2012, we randomly selected 1000 urine samples from patients with suspected UTI. All were Gram stained and those yielding bacteria of a single morphotype were processed for MALDI-TOF MS. Our sequential algorithm was correlated with the standard semiquantitative urine culture result as follows: Match, the information provided was anticipative of culture result; Minor error, the information provided was partially anticipative of culture result; Major error, the information provided was incorrect, potentially leading to inappropriate changes in antimicrobial therapy. A positive culture was obtained in 242/1000 samples. The Gram stain revealed a single morphotype in 207 samples, which were subjected to MALDI-TOF MS. The diagnostic performance of the Gram stain was: sensitivity (Se) 81.3%, specificity (Sp) 93.2%, positive predictive value (PPV) 81.3%, negative predictive value (NPV) 93.2%, positive likelihood ratio (+LR) 11.91, negative likelihood ratio (-LR) 0.20 and accuracy 90.0% while that of MALDI-TOF MS was: Se 79.2%, Sp 73.5, +LR 2.99, -LR 0.28 and accuracy 78.3%. The use of both techniques provided information anticipative of the culture result in 82.7% of cases, information with minor errors in 13.4% and information with major errors in 3.9%. Results were available within 1 h. Our serial algorithm provided information that was consistent or showed minor errors for 96.1% of urine samples from patients with suspected UTI. The clinical impacts of this rapid UTI diagnosis strategy need to be assessed through indicators of adequacy of treatment such as a reduced time to appropriate empirical treatment or earlier withdrawal of unnecessary antibiotics.
    PLoS ONE 01/2014; 9(1):e86915. DOI:10.1371/journal.pone.0086915 · 3.53 Impact Factor
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Objective To define the sensitivity and specificity of stone gram stain for infected urolithiasis treated with percutaneous nephrolithotomy (PCNL). Methods PCNL procedures performed at our institution were analyzed between January 2009 and May 2013. Stone fragments were sent in a sterile fashion for aerobic and fungal cultures. A gram stain and fungal smear were performed on the stones and reported within 24 hours of collection. Results A total of 228 patients underwent 248 PCNLs. Of the 248 stones, 81 (33%) had a positive stone culture. Stone gram stain was positive in 31 cases and negative in 50. There were 167 negative stone cultures, and in these cases, gram stain was positive in 5 and negative in 162. The calculated sensitivity and specificity of stone gram stain were 38% and 97%. The positive and negative predictive values were 86% and 76%, respectively. In the subset of 16 patients with positive stone fungal cultures, fungal smear was performed in 12 and was positive in 4, giving fungal smear a sensitivity of 33%. Conclusion The results of this study suggest that stone gram stain cannot be relied on to detect a positive stone culture and may fail to detect up to 62% of infected stones. However, when positive, gram stain accurately predicts a positive stone culture in 86% of cases.
    Urology 06/2014; 83(6). DOI:10.1016/j.urology.2013.12.043 · 2.13 Impact Factor