Buradasınız

ÎDRAR YOLU ENFEKSİYONU TANISINDA DALDIRMA YÖNTEMLERİ (COUNTER ye ÇIPLAK GÖZ) ÎLE MİKROSKOBİK İNCELEMENİN ÖNEMİ

THE DIAGNOSTIC SIGNIFICANCE OF DIPSTICK ANALYSIS (COUNTER AND NAKED-EYE) AND MICROSCOPIC URINALYSIS TO PREDICT URINARY TRACT INFECTION

Journal Name:

Publication Year:

Abstract (2. Language): 
Dipstick urinalysis is probably the most commonly performed medical screening test for diagnosis of urinary tract infection in childhood. The aim of this prospective blinded study was to assess the sensitivity and specificity of dipstick analysis and microscopic urinalysis. A total of1542 urine specimens were processed by urine culture, dipstick analysis (counter and naked-eye) for leucocyte esterase and nitrite and microscopic examination within two hours. Positive results were observed for 191 (12.39 %) of the 1542 cultures. The sensitivities of dipstick analysis for leucocyte esterase and nitrite were suboptimal compared with microscopic method whereas specifiti-es were almost equal. In conclusion, microscopic examination should be done for dipstick-positive urines and for special circumstances.
Abstract (Original Language): 
Daldırma yöntemleri, çocukluk çağında pratik uygulamada, idrar yolu enfeksiyonu tanısında oldukça sık kullanılmaktadır. Bu çalışmada idrar örneklerinin daldırma yöntemi ve mikroskopik olarak incelenmesi yöntemlerinin etkinliğinin değerlendirilmesi amaçlanmaktadır. Toplam 1542 idrar örneği en geç iki saat içinde id¬rar kültürü, daldırma yöntemi (counter ve çıplak göz) ile lökosit esteraz ve nitrit açısından ve mikroskopik inceleme ile değerlendirilmiştir. Olguların 191 'inde (%12.39) idrar kültüründe üreme saptanmıştır. Daldırma yöntemleri ile lökosit esteraz ve nitrit pozitifliğinin sentitiviteleri mikroskopik değerlendirmeye göre düşük bulunurken, spesifisitele-ri ise eşit değerlerde saptanmıştır. Sonuç olarak counter ve / veya çıplak gözle dipstick ile patoloji saptanan idrar örnekleri, mikroskopik olarak mutlaka incelenmelidir.
FULL TEXT (PDF): 
57-60

REFERENCES

References: 

1. Shaffer A. Recurrent urinary tract infections in women. Postgrad Med. 1987, 81: 51.
2. Sherbotie JR, Cornfeld D. Management of urinary tract in¬fections in children. In The Medical Clinics of North America, Kaye D (ed), 1991; 75 (2): 327-338.
3. Berger SA, Bogokowsky B, Block C. Rapid screening of urine bacteria and cells by using a catalase reagent. J Clin
Microbiol 28: 1066-1067, 1990.
4. Kusumi RK; Grover PJ, Kunin CM. Rapid detection of pyuria by leukocyte esterase activity. JAMA 245: 1653¬1655, 1981.
5. Oneson R, Groschel DHM. Leukocyte esterase activity and nitrite test as a rapid screen for significant bacteriuria.
Am J Clin Pathol 83: 84-87, 1985.
6. Pappas PG. Laboratory in the diagnosis and management of urinary tract infections. In The Medical Clinics of North America by Kaye D (ed), 1991. 75 (2): 313-325.
7. Pezzlo MT, Amsterdam D, Anhalt JP et al. Detection of bacteriuria and pyuria by uriscreen a rapid enzymatic scre¬ening test. J Clin Microbiol 30 (3): 680-684, 1992.
8. Pfaller MA, Koontz FP. Laboratory evaluation of leu¬kocyte esterase and nitrite tests for the detection of bacte-riuria. J Clin Microbiol 21 (4): 840-842, 1985.
9. Weinburg AG, Vanthoya NG. Urine screen for bacteriuria in symptomatic pediatric outpatients. Pediatr Infect Dis J 10 (9): 651-654, 1991.
10. Lohr AJ, Portilla MG. Making a presumptive diagnosis of urinary tract infection by using a urinalysis performed in an on-site laboratory. The J Pediatr 122 (1): 22-25, 1993.
11. Shaw KN, Hexter D. Clinical evaluation of a rapid scree¬ning test for urinary tract infections in children. J Pediatr
118 (5): 733-736, 1991.
12. Kumazawa J, Matsumoto T. The dipstick test in the diag¬nosis of UTI and the effect of pretreatment catheter exc¬hange in catheter-associated UTI. Infection 20 (3): 157¬159,1992.

Thank you for copying data from http://www.arastirmax.com