title: Developing clinical rules to predict urinary tract infection in primary care settings: sensitivity and specificity of near patient tests (dipsticks) and clinical scores.
abstract: BACKGROUND
  Suspected urinary tract infection (UTI) is one of the most common presentations in primary care. Systematic reviews have not documented any adequately powered studies in primary care that assess independent predictors of laboratory diagnosis.
  
  
  OBJECTIVE
  To estimate independent clinical and dipstick predictors of infection and to develop clinical decision rules.
  
  
  METHODS
  Validation study of clinical and dipstick findings compared with laboratory testing.
  
  
  METHODS
  General practices in the south of England.
  
  
  METHODS
  Laboratory diagnosis of 427 women with suspected UTI was assessed using European urinalysis guidelines. Independent clinical and dipstick predictors of diagnosis were estimated.
  
  
  RESULTS
  UTI was confirmed in 62.5% of women with suspected UTI. Only nitrite, leucocyte esterase (+ or greater), and blood (haemolysed trace or greater) independently predicted diagnosis (adjusted odds ratios 6.36, 4.52, 2.23 respectively). A dipstick decision rule, based on having nitrite, or both leucocytes and blood, was moderately sensitive (77%) and specific (70%); positive predictive value (PPV) was 81% and negative predictive value (NPV) was 65%. Predictive values were improved by varying the cut-off point: NPV was 73% for all three dipstick results being negative, and PPV was 92% for having nitrite and either blood or leucocyte esterase. A clinical decision rule, based on having two of the following: urine cloudiness, offensive smell, and dysuria and/or nocturia of moderate severity, was less sensitive (65%) (specificity 69%; PPV 77%, NPV 54%). NPV was 71% for none of the four clinical features, and the PPV was 84% for three or more features.
  
  
  CONCLUSIONS
  Simple decision rules could improve targeting of investigation and treatment. Strategies to use such rules need to take into account limited negative predictive value, which is lower than expected from previous research.
authors.affiliation: Community Clinical Sciences Division, Southampton University, UK. p.little@soton.ac.uk
authors.forename: Paul
authors.initials: P
authors.lastname: Little
authors.forename: Sheila
authors.initials: S
authors.lastname: Turner
authors.forename: Kate
authors.initials: K
authors.lastname: Rumsby
authors.forename: Greg
authors.initials: G
authors.lastname: Warner
authors.forename: Michael
authors.initials: M
authors.lastname: Moore
authors.forename: J Andrew
authors.initials: JA
authors.lastname: Lowes
authors.forename: Helen
authors.initials: H
authors.lastname: Smith
authors.forename: Catherine
authors.initials: C
authors.lastname: Hawke
authors.forename: Mark
authors.initials: M
authors.lastname: Mullee
mesh_terms: D000293:Adolescent; D000328:Adult; D000368:Aged; D005194:Family Practice; D005260:Female; D006801:Humans; D008875:Middle Aged; D017410:Practice Guidelines as Topic / Q000592:standards*; D011237:Predictive Value of Tests; D011934:Reagent Strips; D012680:Sensitivity and Specificity; D014552:Urinary Tract Infections / Q000652:urine*
chemical_list: D011934:Reagent Strips