Searching the Resource Information Network
Are you sure you want to leave this community? Leaving the community will revoke any permissions you have been granted in this community.
Objective: To investigate the validity of microscopy as a diagnostic tool for urinary tract infection in general practice. Methods: (Design/setting) A systematic review was conducted by searching Medline for clinical studies made in general practice, outpatient clinics or similar settings in which the accuracy/validity of microscopy was evaluated with urine culture as the reference standard. Results: Our search resulted in 108 titles. 28 potentially eligible studies were retrieved for full-text reading. We included eight studies involving 4582 patients in this review. The quality of the studies was moderate to high. Specificity ranged from 27% to 100%, sensitivity from 47% to 97%. The variation between studies did not allow for meta-analysis. Conclusion: We did not find substantial evidence to determine the clinical validity of microscopy performed in general practice on urine samples from patients with symptoms of UTI. Key points Urinary tract infection is common in general practice. Methods for precise diagnosis are needed in order to avoid inappropriate treatment. Currently no evidence-based consensus exists regarding the use of urinary microscopy in general practice. We did not find substantial evidence to determine the overall clinical validity of microscopy performed in general practice on urine samples from patients with symptoms of UTI. Light microscopy with oil immersion had high sensitivity and specificity but is time-consuming. Phase-contrast microscopy is quick and had high specificity but lower sensitivity.
Pubmed ID: 31304845
Publication data is provided by the National Library of Medicine ® and PubMed ®. Data is retrieved from PubMed ® on a weekly schedule. For terms and conditions see the National Library of Medicine Terms and Conditions.
A premier bibliographic database that contains over 18 million references to journal articles in life sciences with a concentration on biomedicine. A distinctive feature is that the records are indexed with NLM Medical Subject Headings (MeSH). PubMed provides free access to MEDLINE and links to full text articles when possible. The great majority of journals are selected for MEDLINE based on the recommendation of the Literature Selection Technical Review Committee (LSTRC), an NIH-chartered advisory committee of external experts analogous to the committees that review NIH grant applications. Some additional journals and newsletters are selected based on NLM-initiated reviews, e.g., history of medicine, health services research, AIDS, toxicology and environmental health, molecular biology, and complementary medicine, that are special priorities for NLM or other NIH components. These reviews generally also involve consultation with an array of NIH and outside experts or, in some cases, external organizations with which NLM has special collaborative arrangements. MEDLINE is the primary component of PubMed, part of the Entrez series of databases provided by the NLM National Center for Biotechnology Information (NCBI). MEDLINE may also be searched via the NLM Gateway. Time coverage: generally 1946 to the present, with some older material. Source: Currently, citations from approximately 5,516 worldwide journals in 39 languages; 60 languages for older journals. Citations for MEDLINE are created by the NLM, international partners, and collaborating organizations.
View all literature mentions