ArticleJournal of family medicine and primary care2020
Can urine dipstick test be an alternative to detect urinary tract infection in limited resource setting? - A validity study from Bangalore, India.
Article in Journal of family medicine and primary care, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
3 citing papers in PubMed, 11 citations in OpenAlex.
- Article
- Diagnostic validation study of rapid urinary tract infection diagnosis kit at peripheral health facilities of West Bengal, India.Scientific reports · 2024Article
- Evaluation of the diagnostic performance of the urine dipstick test for the detection of urinary tract infections in patients treated in Kenyan hospitals.Access microbiology · 2023Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundDiagnosis of urinary tract infection (UTI) can be challenging as symptoms are nonspecific. The gold standard for the diagnosis of urine culture is not easily available in resource constrained settings. Hence, the need for affordable point of care diagnostic test could be an inexpensive alternative for urine culture or microscopy. The objective of the study was to validate the urine dipstick test to detect UTI in a resource constrained primary care setting.
methodsA diagnostic accuracy study was conducted in a health center in an urban slum by Bangalore Baptist Hospital. We included 136 patients suspected to have UTI. Patients were asked to give urine samples for urine dipstick analysis, urine microscopy, and urine culture and validity of the dipstick was analyzed.
resultsA total of 136 patients fulfilling the inclusion criteria were recruited. Nitrite had higher specificity than leukocyte esterase (95% vs. 73%). Positive predictive value for nitrite and leukocyte was 84% and 51%, respectively. A combination of fever, dysuria along with lower abdominal pain had higher specificity (92%). Most common organism that was isolated was
conclusionUrine dipstick could be used as a simple diagnostic test in a limited resource setting for a rapid diagnosis and initiation of empirical antibiotic therapy. Urine dipstick for nitrite has a good specificity.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.