Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 24 of the 24 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Can routine automated urinalysis reduce culture requests?

Kayalp, Damla, Dogan, Kubra, Ceylan, Gozde, Senes, Mehmet, Yucel, Dogan·2013·Clinical Biochemistry

Abstract

Objectives There are a substantial number of unnecessary urine culture requests. We aimed to investigate whether urine dipstick and microscopy results could accurately rule out urinary tract infection (UTI) without urine culture. Design and methods The study included a total of 32,998 patients (11,928 men and 21,070 women, mean age: 39 ± 32 years) with a preliminary diagnosis of UTI and both urinalysis and urinary culture were requested. All urine cultures were retrospectively reviewed; association of culture positivity with a positive urinalysis result for leukocyte esterase (LE) and nitrite in chemical analysis and pyuria (WBC) and bacteriuria in microscopy was determined. Diagnostic performance of urinalysis parameters for detection of UTI was evaluated. Results In total, 758 (2.3%) patients were positive by urine culture. Out of these culture positive samples, ratios of positive dipstick results for LE and nitrite were 71.0% (n=538) and 17.7% (n=134), respectively. The positive microscopy results for WBC and bacteria were 68.2% (n=517) and 78.8% (n=597), respectively. Negative predictive values for LE, nitrite, bacteriuria and WBC were very close to 100%. Conclusions Most of the samples have no or insignificant bacterial growth. Urine dipstick and microscopy can accurately rule out UTI. Automated urinalysis is a practicable and faster screening test which may prevent unnecessary culture requests for majority of patients.

Overview

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1016/j.clinbiochem.2013.06.015

Cites

24 of 24 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Verification

Claims the paper makes

We couldn’t retrieve this paper’s full text, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Citations

Cites

Show all 24 references

Cited by

See all 65

Metadata

Authors
Kayalp, D., Dogan, K., Ceylan, G., Senes, M., & Yucel, D.
Affiliations
Ministry of Health (TR)
Venue
Clinical Biochemistry
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2013-09
Volume
46
Issue
13-14
Pages
1285-1289
ISSN
0009-9120 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W1993538649
Cited by
65
References
24
Citations by year
2025: 5 · 2024: 3 · 2023: 7 · 2022: 4 · 2021: 9 · 2020: 7 · 2019: 3 · 2018: 7 · 2017: 7 · 2016: 7 · 2015: 2 · 2014: 4
FWCI
3.15
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Licence
  • www.elsevier.com/tdm/userlicense/1.0/ (tdm)
  • www.elsevier.com/legal/tdmrep-license (tdm)
Locations
  • Clinical Biochemistry (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Urology › Urinary Tract Infections Management
  • Health Sciences › Health Professions › Medical Laboratory Technology › Clinical Laboratory Practices and Quality Control
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Pediatrics, Perinatology and Child Health › Pediatric Urology and Nephrology Studies
Keywords
urinary tract infection, automated urine analysis, urine dipstick, urine microscopy, urine culture, leukocyte esterase, nitrite, pyuria, bacteriuria, diagnostic accuracy, negative predictive value, screening test
MeSH terms
Adolescent, Adult, Aged, Aged, 80 and over, Bacteriuria, Child, Child, Preschool, Female, Humans, Infant, Infant, Newborn, Male, Middle Aged, Reagent Strips, Urinary Tract Infections, Urine, Urinalysis, Cell Culture Techniques

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review

How to cite

Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.

This page
CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Can routine automated urinalysis reduce culture requests? https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1016/j.clinbiochem.2013.06.015
The paper
Kayalp, D., Dogan, K., Ceylan, G., Senes, M., & Yucel, D. (2013). Can routine automated urinalysis reduce culture requests? Clinical Biochemistry. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.clinbiochem.2013.06.015

Data sources

Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.

Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).

Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.