Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 243

The DOI matches its Crossref record.

Screening Tests for Urinary Tract Infection in Children: A Meta-analysis

Gorelick, Marc H., Shaw, Kathy N.·1999·Pediatrics

Abstract

Objective.: To review systematically and to summarize the existing literature regarding performance of rapid diagnostic tests for urinary tract infection (UTI) in children. Design.: Systematic review and meta-analysis. Methods.: Published articles reporting the performance of urine dipstick tests (leukocyte esterase [LE] and/or nitrite), Gram stain, or microscopic analysis of spun or unspun urine in the diagnosis of UTI in children ≤12 years of age. Articles were identified through a comprehensive MEDLINE search, and those articles meeting a priori inclusion criteria were selected. Eligibility criteria included the use of urine culture as the reference standard, independent comparison of urine culture with the results of one of the screening tests, definition of positive screening test results provided, only pediatric patients included or evaluable separately, and both gold standard and screening test performed on all patients. For each test, heterogeneity of reported sensitivity and specificity of all studies was determined. The subgroups of studies with similar definitions of UTI and age of study subjects were analyzed separately to account for some of the differences in reported results. When significant unexplained heterogeneity among studies precluded simple combining of results, a summary receiver–operator characteristic curve was fitted for each screening test, from which pooled estimates of true-positive rate (TPR; ie, sensitivity) and false-positive rate (FPR; 1-specificity) were calculated. Primary Results.: A total of 1489 titles were identified by the MEDLINE search; 26 articles met all criteria for inclusion. There was significant heterogeneity among studies for nearly all tests for both TPR and FPR, which was explained only partially by the stringency of the definition of UTI or age of subjects studied. Based on the pooled estimates, the presence of any bacteria on Gram stain on an uncentrifuged urine specimen had the best combination of sensitivity (0.93) and FPR (0.05). Urine dipstick tests performed nearly as well, with a sensitivity of 0.88 for the the presence of either LE or nitrite and an FPR of 0.04 for the presence of both LE and nitrite. Pyuria had lower TPR and higher FPR: for presence of >5 white blood cells/high-power field in a centrifuged urine sample, the TPR was 0.67 and the FPR was 0.21, whereas for >10 white blood cells per mm3 in uncentrifuged urine, the TPR was 0.77 and the FPR was 0.11. Conclusions.: Both Gram stain and dipstick analysis for nitrite and LE perform similarly in detecting UTI in children and are superior to microscopic analysis for pyuria.

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.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1542/peds.104.5.e54

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.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

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

See all 243

Metadata

Authors
Gorelick, M. H., & Shaw, K. N.
Venue
Pediatrics
Published
1999-11-01
Volume
104
Issue
5
Pages
e54-e54
ISSN
  • 0031-4005 (ISSN-L)
  • 1098-4275
OpenAlex
W2159300537
Cited by
243
References
0
FWCI
5.55
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 Tests for Urinary Tract Infection in Children: A Meta-analysis. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1542/peds.104.5.e54
The paper
Gorelick, M. H., & Shaw, K. N. (1999). Screening Tests for Urinary Tract Infection in Children: A Meta-analysis. Pediatrics. https://doi.org/10.1542/peds.104.5.e54

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.