Evidence map›Paper›PMID 41340861›Full record

ArticleEClinicalMedicine2025

Diagnostic test accuracy of dipstick urinalysis in clean catch urine for urinary tract infection in febrile infants presenting to emergency departments: a post-hoc analysis of the FIDO study.

Clare Mills, Etimbuk Umana, Nishant Sharma, Thomas Waterfield

Registry-linked trialAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in EClinicalMedicine, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT05259683 (Validating Clinical Decision Aids for the Assessment and Management of Febrile Infants Presenting to Emergency Care in the UK and Ireland.), which is not on this map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

NCT05259683 completednot on this map

Validating Clinical Decision Aids for the Assessment and Management of Febrile Infants Presenting to Emergency Care in the UK and Ireland.

TypeobservationalSponsorQueen's University, BelfastRan2022 to 2023Enrolled2,076ConditionsUrinary Tract Infections, Meningitis, Sepsis, Bacterial Infections
3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

4 authors.

Clare MillsWellcome Wolfson Institute of Experimental Medicine, Queen's University Belfast, 97 Lisburn Road, Belfast, BT9 7BL, UK.
Etimbuk UmanaWellcome Wolfson Institute of Experimental Medicine, Queen's University Belfast, 97 Lisburn Road, Belfast, BT9 7BL, UK.
Nishant SharmaWellcome Wolfson Institute of Experimental Medicine, Queen's University Belfast, 97 Lisburn Road, Belfast, BT9 7BL, UK.
Thomas WaterfieldWellcome Wolfson Institute of Experimental Medicine, Queen's University Belfast, 97 Lisburn Road, Belfast, BT9 7BL, UK.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Background: Studies where urine is typically obtained via invasive methods, show dipstick urinalysis can accurately screen for urinary tract infection (UTI) in febrile infants under 90 days old. However, evidence is limited in settings where clean catch urine collection is standard practice. This study assessed the accuracy of dipstick for UTI in a prospective cohort of febrile infants presenting to UK and Ireland emergency departments, where clean catch is the predominant urine collection method. Methods: Post-hoc analysis of the Febrile Infant Diagnostic Assessment and Outcome study, a prospective multicentre observational cohort study. Febrile infants ≤90 days old were recruited from 35 Paediatric Emergency Research in the UK and Ireland (PERUKI) sites (NCT05259683) between 6th July 2022 and the 31st August 2023. Accuracy of dipstick urinalysis testing for detecting UTI was reported with sensitivity, specificity and predictive values. Findings: In this multicentre prospective study of 1821 febrile infants ≤90 days, point-of-care dipstick urinalysis was performed in 57.1% of cases. Diagnostic accuracy varied significantly by age, sex, and method of dipstick assessment. Sensitivity was lowest in neonates (≤28 days; 53.3%) and if dipsticks were user-inspected (57.1%), highlighting limitations in these subgroups. In contrast, automated dipstick testing in infants >28 days achieved high sensitivity (87.5%) and moderate specificity (73.4%) at a cut-off of ≥trace leukocytes and/or ≥trace nitrites. Specificity was notably lower in female infants (60.3%) than males (85.0%), likely due to higher contamination rates in clean catch samples. Interpretation: Automated dipstick urinalysis offers a reliable method for excluding UTI in infants >28 days and can guide selective urine culture use when clean catch urine sampling is used. However, dipstick testing of samples obtained by clean catch should not be used to rule out UTI in neonates or when relying on manual interpretation due to poor sensitivity. Funding: Royal College of Emergency Medicine Doctoral Fellowship (RCEM 02/03/2021), the funders played no part in study conception or design.

Indexed as

Clean catch urineDiagnostic accuracyDipstick urinalysisEmergency departmentsInfantsUrinary tract infection

Identifiers

PMID41340861
PMCPMC12670933

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
Read underepoch 390

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.