ArticleExperimental and therapeutic medicine2021
Discrepancy in results between dipstick urinalysis and urine sediment microscopy.
Article in Experimental and therapeutic medicine, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 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
7 citing papers in PubMed, 22 citations in OpenAlex.
- Diagnostic tests for urinary tract infections and antimicrobial resistance-a reality check between diagnostic innovation and implementation: a critical narrative review.Frontiers in cellular and infection microbiology · 2026Review
- Prevalence, Diagnostic Accuracy, and Antimicrobial Resistance Patterns of Uropathogens in Urinary Tract Infections at a Health Facility in Kumasi, Ghana.MicrobiologyOpen · 2025Article
- Isolated microhematuria in potential kidney donors: evaluating kidney biopsy findings with dipstick urinalysis and urine microscopy results.Clinical kidney journal · 2025Article
- Comprehensive insights into UTIs: from pathophysiology to precision diagnosis and management.Frontiers in cellular and infection microbiology · 2024Review
- Comprehensive prediction of urolithiasis based on clinical factors, blood chemistry and urinalysis: UROLITHIASIS score.Scientific reports · 2023Article
- The application of new complex indicators in the detection of urine.BMC nephrology · 2023Article
- 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
With the advancement of urine test automation and the large-scale application of quality management policies, the source of the most crucial errors has become the pre-analytical phase. This study is an attempt to compare the results obtained from the examination of urine strips with those obtained by microscopic examination of urinary sediment, highlighting discordant results. This observational study was conducted between February and August 2019 in a private medical laboratory in Mureş County, and 2,600 urine samples were analyzed. We calculated the sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value, negative predictive value for leukocytes, nitrites and red blood cells, taking as reference the microscopic examination of urine summary screening. Urine samples were collected from patients who presented to the laboratory. The 2,600 urine samples were analyzed using strips with 10 parameters: glucose, protein, bilirubin, urobilinogen, pH, specific density, red blood cells, nitrite, and leukocytes, and then using the microscope to examine the urinary sediment. We identified a small percentage (1.92%) of inconsistencies from the 2,600 samples of urine, between urinalysis and the microscopic examination and we identified the causes. The most common discordant results were: false-negatives for nitrite (72%), followed by false-positives results for red blood cells (22%), false-negative results for leukocytes (16%), false-negative results for red blood cells (4%) and false-positives for leukocytes (4%). The study confirmed that discrepancies appear despite the proper instruction of patients.
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.