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: [The validation of a rapid diagnostic method for urinary infection in the school-age population].
    Author: Pérula de Torres LA, de Borja Ranz Garijo F, Martínez de la Iglesia J, Blanco Negredo A, Acasuso Díaz G, Crespo Crespo A, Lechuga Varona MT, Seco Piñero MI.
    Journal: Rev Clin Esp; 1993 Mar; 192(5):209-13. PubMed ID: 7639824.
    Abstract:
    Validity of visual reading of a reactive strip is measured, in comparison with automatized reading and the exam of the urinary sediment, in 562 school pupils with ages between 6 and 16 years. Using urine culture as standard reference, sensibility of the leukocyte-esterase (L-E) test, nitrites and red cells was 66.7%, 33.3% and 66.7% respectively, for the visual reading; 66.7%, 33.3% and 33.3% for automatized reading, respectively; and 66.7% for leukocyturia, and 33.3% for hematuria in the urine sediment. Specificity of tests was 84.9%, 99% and 42.7% for L-E, nitrites and red cells, in visual reading; 92.5%, 100% and 80.8% for the same tests in automatized reading, and 94.5% (leukocyturia) and 86.3% (red cells) in the urinary sediment. Validity of these diagnostic methods results different depending on the population they are applied to. Even though the multi-urine test is still the most effective test in a symptomatic population and the less expensive, it would be not recommendable its use as a screening test in a school population with hidden urinary infection.
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related] [New Search]