The DOI matches its Crossref record.
Screening for Urinary Tract Infection in Infants in the Emergency Department: Which Test Is Best?
Abstract
Objective. Comparison of rapid tests and screening strategies for detecting urinary tract infection (UTI) in infants. Methods. Cross-sectional study conducted in an urban tertiary care children's hospital emergency department and clinical laboratories of 3873 infants <2 years of age who had a urine culture obtained in the emergency department by urethral catheterization; results of urine dipstick tests for leukocyte esterase or nitrites, enhanced urinalysis (UA) (urine white blood cell count/mm3plus Gram stain), Gram stain alone, and dipstick plus microscopic UA (white blood cells and bacteria per high-powered field) compared with urine culture results (positive urine results defined as ≥104 colony-forming units per milliliter of urinary tract pathogen) for each sample. Cost comparison of 1) dipstick plus culture of all urine specimens versus 2) cell count ± Gram stain of urine, culture only those with positive results. Results. The enhanced UA was most sensitive at detecting UTI (94%; 95% confidence interval: 83,99), but had more false-positive results (16%) than the urine dipstick or Gram stain (3%). The most cost-effective strategy was to perform cultures on all infants and begin presumptive treatment on those whose dipstick had at least moderate (+2) leukocyte esterase or positive nitrite at a cost of $3.70 per child. With this strategy, all infants with UTI were detected. If the enhanced UA was used to screen for when to send the urine for culture, 82% of cultures would be eliminated, but 4% to 6% of infants with UTI would be missed and the cost would be higher ($6.66 per child). Conclusion. No rapid test can detect all infants with UTI. Physicians should send urine for culture from all infants and begin presumptive treatment only on those with a significantly positive dipstick result. The enhanced UA is most sensitive for detecting UTI, but is less specific and more costly, and should be reserved for the neonate for whom a UTI should not be missed at first visit.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cited by
The urine dipstick test useful to rule out infections. A meta-analysis of the accuracy
Devillé, W. L., Yzermans, J. C., van Duijn, N. P., Bezemer, P. D., van der Windt, D. A., & Bouter, L. M. (2004) · BMC Urology · doi:10.1186/1471-2490-4-4 · Cited by 519
European Urinalysis Guidelines
Kouri, T., Fogazzi, G., Gant, V., Hallander, H., Hofmann, W., & Guder, W. G. (2000) · Scandinavian Journal of Clinical and Laboratory Investigation · doi:10.1080/00365513.2000.12056993 · Cited by 384
Defining Cerebrospinal Fluid White Blood Cell Count Reference Values in Neonates and Young Infants
Kestenbaum, L. A., Ebberson, J., Zorc, J. J., Hodinka, R. L., & Shah, S. S. (2010) · Pediatrics · doi:10.1542/peds.2009-1181 · Cited by 168
Humphries, R. M., & Dien Bard, J. (2016) · Journal of Clinical Microbiology · doi:10.1128/jcm.03021-15 · Cited by 63
Shah, S. S., Ebberson, J., Kestenbaum, L. A., Hodinka, R. L., & Zorc, J. J. (2011) · Journal of Hospital Medicine · doi:10.1002/jhm.711 · Cited by 59
Metadata
- Authors
- Shaw, K. N., McGowan, K. L., Gorelick, M. H., & Schwartz, J. S.
- Venue
- Pediatrics
- Publisher
- American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP)
- Published
- 1998-06-01
- Volume
- 101
- Issue
- 6
- Pages
- e1-e1
- ISSN
- 0031-4005 (ISSN-L)
- 1098-4275
- OpenAlex
- W2132172265
- Cited by
- 177
- References
- 0
- FWCI
- 6.78
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
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: Screening for Urinary Tract Infection in Infants in the Emergency Department: Which Test Is Best? https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1542/peds.101.6.e1
- The paper
- Shaw, K. N., McGowan, K. L., Gorelick, M. H., & Schwartz, J. S. (1998). Screening for Urinary Tract Infection in Infants in the Emergency Department: Which Test Is Best? Pediatrics. https://doi.org/10.1542/peds.101.6.e1
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.