Report

Dipsticks and diagnostic algorithms in urinary tract infection: development and validation, randomised trial, economic analysis, observational cohort, and qualitative study

Authors: Little P, Turner S, Rumsby K, Warner G, Moore M, Lowes JA, Smith H, Hawke C, Turner D, Leydon GM, Arscott A, Mullee M

Journal: Health Technology Assessment Volume: 13 Issue: 19

Publication date: April 2009

DOI: 10.3310/hta13190

Citation:

Little P, Turner S, Rumsby K, Warner G, Moore M, Lowes JA, et al.Dipsticks and diagnostic algorithms in urinary tract infection: development and validation, randomised trial, economic analysis, observational cohort, and qualitative study. Health Technol Assess 2009;13(19)


Download: Citation (for this publication as a .ris file) (4.1 KB)


Journal issues* can be purchased by completing the form.


The cost of reports varies according to number of pages and postage address. The minimum cost for a copy sent to a UK address is £30.00. We will contact you on receipt of your completed form to advise you of actual cost. If you have any queries, please contact nihredit@southampton.ac.uk.


*We regret that unfortunately we are unable to supply bound print copies of Health Technology Assessment published before issue 12:31. However, PDFs are available to print from the "Downloads" tab of the issue page.

Responses

No responses have been published. If you would like to submit a response to this publication, please do so using the form below.

Comments submitted to the NIHR Journals Library are electronic letters to the editor. They enable our readers to debate issues raised in research reports published in the Journals Library. We aim to post within 2 working days all responses that contribute substantially to the topic investigated, as determined by the Editors.

Your name and affiliations will be published with your comment.

Once published, you will not have the right to remove or edit your response. The Editors may add, remove, or edit comments at their absolute discretion.

Post your response

Surname

Forename

Middle Initial

Occupation / Job title

Affiliation / Employer

Email

Address

Other authors

For example, if you are responding as a team or group. Please ensure you include full names and separate these using commas

Statement of competing interests

We believe that readers should be aware of any competing interests (conflicts of interest).

The International Committee of Medical Journal Editors (ICMJE) define competing interests as including: financial relationships with industry (for example through employment, consultancies, stock, ownership, honoraria, and expert testimony), either directly or through immediate family; personal relationships; academic competition; and intellectual passion.

If yes, provide details below:

Enter response title

Enter response message

Enter CAPTCHA

Security key

Regenerate security key

By submitting your response, you are stating that you agree to the terms & conditions

  • Abstract

Abstract

Objectives

To estimate clinical and dipstick predictors of infection and develop and test clinical scores; to compare management using clinical and dipstick scores with commonly used alternative strategies; to estimate the cost-effectiveness of each strategy; and to understand the natural history of urinary tract infection (UTI) and women's concerns about its presentation and management.

Design

There were six studies: (1) validation development for diagnostic clinical and dipstick scores; (2) validation of the scores developed; (3) observation of the natural history of UTI; (4) randomised controlled trial (RCT) of scores developed in study 1; (5) economic analysis of the RCT; (6) qualitative study of patients in the RCT.

Setting

Primary care.

Participants

Women aged 17-70 with suspected UTI.

Interventions

Patients were randomised to five management approaches: empirical antibiotics; empirical delayed antibiotics; target antibiotics based on a higher symptom score; target antibiotics based on dipstick results; or target antibiotics based on a positive mid-stream specimen of urine (MSU).

Main outcome measures

Antibiotic use, use of MSUs, rates of reconsultation and duration, and severity of symptoms.

Results

(1) 62.5% of women had confirmed UTI. Only nitrite, leucocyte esterase and blood independently predicted diagnosis of UTI. A dipstick rule--based on having nitrite or both leucocytes and blood--was moderately sensitive (77%) and specific (70%) [positive predictive value (PPV) 81%, negative predictive value (NPV) 65%]. A clinical rule--based on having two of urine cloudiness, offensive smell, reported moderately severe dysuria, moderately severe nocturia--was less sensitive (65%) (specificity 69%, PPV 77%, NPV 54%). (2) 66% of women had confirmed UTI. The predictive values of nitrite, leucocyte esterase and blood were confirmed. The dipstick rule was moderately sensitive (75%) but less specific (66%) (PPV 81%, NPV 57%). (3) Symptoms rated as moderately bad or worse lasted 3.25 days on average for infections sensitive to antibiotics; resistant infections lasted 56% longer, infections not treated with antibiotics 62% longer and symptoms associated with urethral syndrome 33% longer. Symptom duration was shorter if the doctor was perceived to be positive about prognosis, and longer with frequent somatic symptoms, previous history of cystitis, urinary frequency and more severe symptoms at baseline. (4) 66% of the MSU group had laboratory-confirmed UTI. Women suffered 3.5 days of moderately bad symptoms if they took antibiotics immediately but 4.8 days if they delayed taking antibiotics for 48 hours. Taking bicarbonate or cranberry juice had no effect. (5) The MSU group was more costly over 1 month but not over 1 year. Cost-effectiveness acceptability curves showed that for a value per day of moderately bad symptoms of over 10 pounds, the dipstick strategy is most likely to be cost-effective. (6) Fear of spread to the kidneys, blood in the urine, and the impact of symptoms on vocational and leisure activities were important triggers for seeking help. When patients are asked to delay taking antibiotics the uncomfortable and worrying journey from 'person to patient' needs to be acknowledged and the rationale behind delaying the antibiotics made clear.

Conclusions

To achieve good symptom control and reduce antibiotic use clinicians should either offer a 48-hour delayed antibiotic prescription to be used at the patient's discretion or target antibiotic treatment by dipsticks (positive nitrite or positive leucocytes and blood) with the offer of a delayed prescription if dipstick results are negative.

Publication updates

If you would like to receive information on publications and the latest news, click below to sign up.