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: 'Routine urinalysis'. Is the dipstick enough?
    Author: Shaw ST, Poon SY, Wong ET.
    Journal: JAMA; 1985 Mar 15; 253(11):1596-600. PubMed ID: 3974041.
    Abstract:
    Results of this study indicated that a protein-negative, blood-negative dipstick result may be used to rule out the necessity for performing a microscopic examination in "routine urinalysis" only if one is willing to accept 13% false-negative results. On the other hand, a protein-, blood-, and leukocyte esterase-negative dipstick result was associated with 1.4% to 3.3% false-negative results. The high sensitivity of the leukocyte esterase-measuring dipstick for microscopically abnormal urine samples was dependent on its ability to detect small numbers of leukocytes only when interpreted five minutes after immersing it in the sample. Various approaches may be used by which these findings could be applied to produce cost savings and also protect the small number of patients who may have dipstick-negative, microscopically positive urine.
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related] [New Search]