These tools will no longer be maintained as of December 31, 2024. Archived website can be found here. PubMed4Hh GitHub repository can be found here. Contact NLM Customer Service if you have questions.


Pubmed for Handhelds

PUBMED FOR HANDHELDS

Search MEDLINE/PubMed

  • Title: Detection of bacteriuria and pyuria by URISCREEN a rapid enzymatic screening test.
    Author: Pezzlo MT, Amsterdam D, Anhalt JP, Lawrence T, Stratton NJ, Vetter EA, Peterson EM, de la Maza LM.
    Journal: J Clin Microbiol; 1992 Mar; 30(3):680-4. PubMed ID: 1551986.
    Abstract:
    A multicenter study was performed to evaluate the ability of the URISCREEN (Analytab Products, Plainview, N.Y.), a 2-min catalase tube test, to detect bacteriuria and pyuria. This test was compared with the Chemstrip LN (BioDynamics, Division of Boehringer Mannheim Diagnostics, Indianapolis, Ind.), a 2-min enzyme dipstick test; a semiquantitative plate culture method was used as the reference test for bacteriuria, and the Gram stain or a quantitative chamber count method was used as the reference test for pyuria. Each test was evaluated for its ability to detect probable pathogens at greater than or equal to 10(2) CFU/ml and/or greater than or equal to 1 leukocyte per oil immersion field, as determined by the Gram stain method, or greater than 10 leukocytes per microliter, as determined by the quantitative count method. A total of 1,500 urine specimens were included in this evaluation. There were 298 specimens with greater than or equal 10(2) CFU/ml and 451 specimens with pyuria. Of the 298 specimens with probable pathogens isolated at various colony counts, 219 specimens had colony counts of greater than or equal to 10(5) CFU/ml, 51 specimens had between 10(4) and 10(5) CFU/ml, and 28 specimens had between 10(2) and less than 10(4) CFU/ml. Both the URISCREEN and the Chemstrip LN detected 93% (204 of 219) of the specimens with probable pathogens at greater than or equal to 10(5) CFU/ml. For the specimens with probable pathogens at greater than or equal to 10(2) CFU/ml, the sensitivities of the URISCREEN and the Chemstrip LN were 86% (256 of 298) and 81% (241 of 298), respectively. Of the 451 specimens with pyuria, the URISCREEN detected 88% (398 of 451) and Chemstrip LN detected 78% (350 if 451). There were 204 specimens with both greater than or equal to 10(2) CFU/ml and pyuria; the sensitivities of both methods were 95% (193 of 204) for these specimens. Overall, there were 545 specimens with probable pathogens at greater than or equal to 10(2) CFU/ml and/or pyuria. The URISCREEN detected 85% (461 of 545), and the Chemstrip LN detected 73% (398 of 545). A majority (76%) of the false-negative results obtained with either method were for specimens without leukocytes in the urine. There were 955 specimens with no probable pathogens or leukocytes. Of these, 28% (270 of 955) were found positive by the URISCREEN and 13% (122 of 955) were found positive by the Chemstrip LN. A majority of the false-positive results were probably due, in part, to the detection of enzymes present in both bacterial and somatic cells by each of the test systems. Overall, the URISCREEN is rapid, manual, easy-to-perform enzymatic test that yields findings similar to those yielded by the Chemstrip LN for specimens with both greater than or equal to 10(2) CFU/ml and pyuria or for specimens with greater than or equal to 10(5) CFU/ml and with or without pyuria. However, when the data were analyzed for either probable pathogens at less 10(5) CFU/ml or pyuria, the sensitivity of the URISCREEN was higher (P less than 0.05).
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related] [New Search]