title: Diagnostic value and cost utility analysis for urine Gram stain and urine microscopic examination as screening tests for urinary tract infection.
abstract: The aim of this study was to evaluate the diagnostic properties of urine Gram stain and urine microscopic examination for screening for urinary tract infection (UTI), and to perform an additional cost utility analysis. This descriptive study was performed on 95 urine samples sent for urine culture to the Department of Microbiology, Faculty of Medicine, Chulalongkorn University. The first part of the study was to determine the diagnostic properties of two screening tests (urine Gram stain and urine microscopic examination). Urine culture was set as the gold standard and the results from both methods were compared to this. The second part of this study was to perform a cost utility analysis. The sensitivity of urine Gram stain was 96.2%, the specificity 93.0%, the positive predictive value 94.3% and the negative predictive value 95.2%. False positives occurred with a frequency of 7.0% and false negatives 3.8%. For the microscopic examination, the sensitivity was 65.4%, specificity 74.4%, positive predictive value 75.6% and negative predictive value 64.0%. False positives occurred with a frequency of 25.6% and false negatives 34.6%. Combining urine Gram stain and urine microscopic examination, the sensitivity was 98.1%, specificity 74.4%, positive predictive value 82.3% and negative predictive value 97.0%. False positives occurred with a frequency of 25.6% and false negatives 1.9%. However, the cost per utility of the combined method was higher than either urine microscopic examination or urine Gram stain alone. Urine Gram stain provided the lowest cost per utility. Economically, urine Gram stain is the proper screening tool for presumptive diagnosis of UTI.
authors.affiliation: Department of Laboratory Medicine, Faculty of Medicine, Chulalongkorn University, 10330 Bangkok, Thailand. Viroj.w@Chula.ac.th
authors.forename: Viroj
authors.initials: V
authors.lastname: Wiwanitkit
authors.forename: Nibhond
authors.initials: N
authors.lastname: Udomsantisuk
authors.forename: Chaiyaporn
authors.initials: C
authors.lastname: Boonchalermvichian
mesh_terms: D003365:Costs and Cost Analysis; D003951:Diagnostic Errors; D005840:Gentian Violet / Q000191:economics*; D006801:Humans; D008853:Microscopy; D010619:Phenazines / Q000191:economics*; D014552:Urinary Tract Infections / Q000175:diagnosis*
chemical_list: C035863:Gram's stain; D010619:Phenazines; D005840:Gentian Violet
references.citation: Diagn Microbiol Infect Dis. 1984 Jun;2(3):179-86
references.pmid: 6204806
references.citation: Am J Clin Pathol. 1994 Jan;101(1):100-3
references.pmid: 7506476
references.citation: Clin Pediatr (Phila). 1990 Apr;29(4):214-8
references.pmid: 2331830
references.citation: J Pak Med Assoc. 1996 Feb;46(2):38-41
references.pmid: 8683847
references.citation: Am J Clin Pathol. 1991 Oct;96(4):454-8
references.pmid: 1716413
references.citation: J Antimicrob Chemother. 2000 Sep;46 Suppl 1:1-7; discussion 63-5
references.pmid: 11051617
references.citation: Br J Gen Pract. 2002 Sep;52(482):752-61
references.pmid: 12236281
references.citation: J Urol. 2002 Dec;168(6):2351-8
references.pmid: 12441917