Dipsticks and diagnostic algorithms in urinary tract infection: development and validation, randomised trial, economic analysis, observational cohort and qualitative study
Open accessAbstract
OBJECTIVES: To estimate clinical and dipstick predictors of infection and develop and test clinical scores; to compare management using clinical and dipstick scores with commonly used alternative strategies; to estimate the cost-effectiveness of each strategy; and to understand the natural history of urinary tract infection (UTI) and women's concerns about its presentation and management. DESIGN: There were six studies: (1) validation development for diagnostic clinical and dipstick scores; (2) validation of the scores developed; (3) observation of the natural history of UTI; (4) randomised controlled trial (RCT) of scores developed in study 1; (5) economic analysis of the RCT; (6) qualitative study of patients in the RCT. SETTING: Primary care. PARTICIPANTS: Women aged 17-70 with suspected UTI. INTERVENTIONS: Patients were randomised to five management approaches: empirical antibiotics; empirical delayed antibiotics; target antibiotics based on a higher symptom score; target antibiotics based on dipstick results; or target antibiotics based on a positive mid-stream specimen of urine (MSU). MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Antibiotic use, use of MSUs, rates of reconsultation and duration, and severity of symptoms. RESULTS: (1) 62.5% of women had confirmed UTI. Only nitrite, leucocyte esterase and blood independently predicted diagnosis of UTI. A dipstick rule--based on having nitrite or both leucocytes and blood--was moderately sensitive (77%) and specific (70%) [positive predictive value (PPV) 81%, negative predictive value (NPV) 65%]. A clinical rule--based on having two of urine cloudiness, offensive smell, reported moderately severe dysuria, moderately severe nocturia--was less sensitive (65%) (specificity 69%, PPV 77%, NPV 54%). (2) 66% of women had confirmed UTI. The predictive values of nitrite, leucocyte esterase and blood were confirmed. The dipstick rule was moderately sensitive (75%) but less specific (66%) (PPV 81%, NPV 57%). (3) Symptoms rated as moderately bad or worse lasted 3.25 days on average for infections sensitive to antibiotics; resistant infections lasted 56% longer, infections not treated with antibiotics 62% longer and symptoms associated with urethral syndrome 33% longer. Symptom duration was shorter if the doctor was perceived to be positive about prognosis, and longer with frequent somatic symptoms, previous history of cystitis, urinary frequency and more severe symptoms at baseline. (4) 66% of the MSU group had laboratory-confirmed UTI. Women suffered 3.5 days of moderately bad symptoms if they took antibiotics immediately but 4.8 days if they delayed taking antibiotics for 48 hours. Taking bicarbonate or cranberry juice had no effect. (5) The MSU group was more costly over 1 month but not over 1 year. Cost-effectiveness acceptability curves showed that for a value per day of moderately bad symptoms of over 10 pounds, the dipstick strategy is most likely to be cost-effective. (6) Fear of spread to the kidneys, blood in the urine, and the impact of symptoms on vocational and leisure activities were important triggers for seeking help. When patients are asked to delay taking antibiotics the uncomfortable and worrying journey from 'person to patient' needs to be acknowledged and the rationale behind delaying the antibiotics made clear. CONCLUSIONS: To achieve good symptom control and reduce antibiotic use clinicians should either offer a 48-hour delayed antibiotic prescription to be used at the patient's discretion or target antibiotic treatment by dipsticks (positive nitrite or positive leucocytes and blood) with the offer of a delayed prescription if dipstick results are negative.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
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?
This study revealed that urine cultures can be ruled out in 96% of cases with normal dipstick test results.
“Nonetheless, this study revealed that urine cultures can be ruled out in 96% of cases with normal dipstick test results, supporting the use of this test as a valuable, economic and rapid alternative for urinary tract infection screening.29”
From Performance of the dipstick screening test as a predictor of negative urine culture (2017) · cites this paper as [29]
Cites
Towards complete and accurate reporting of studies of diagnostic accuracy: the STARD initiative
Bossuyt, P. M., Reitsma, J. B., Bruns, D. E., Gatsonis, C. A., Glasziou, P. P., Irwig, L. M., Lijmer, J. G., Moher, D., Rennie, D., & de Vet, H. C. W. (2003) · BMJ · doi:10.1136/bmj.326.7379.41 · Cited by 3,215
Qualitative research methods in health technology assessment: a review of the literature.
Murphy, Dingwall, Greatbatch, Parker, & Watson (1998) · Health Technology Assessment · doi:10.3310/hta2160 · Cited by 1,107 · see citing works
Avenell, A., Broom, J., Brown, T., Poobalan, A., Aucott, L., Stearns, S., Smith, W., Jung, R., Campbell, M., & Grant, A. (2004) · Health Technology Assessment · doi:10.3310/hta8210 · Cited by 1,041 · see citing works
Quality-of-life measures in chronic diseases of childhood
Eiser, C., & Morse, R. (2001) · Health Technology Assessment · doi:10.3310/hta5040 · Cited by 872 · see citing works
How should cost data in pragmatic randomised trials be analysed?
Thompson, S. G. (2000) · BMJ · doi:10.1136/bmj.320.7243.1197 · Cited by 772 · see citing works
Moher, D., Pham, B., Lawson, M., & Klassen, T. (2003) · Health Technology Assessment · doi:10.3310/hta7410 · Cited by 500 · see citing works
Churchill, R., Hunot, V., Corney, R., Knapp, M., McGuire, H., Tylee, A., & Wessely, S. (2002) · Health Technology Assessment · doi:10.3310/hta5350 · Cited by 368 · see citing works
Kaltenthaler, E., Brazier, J., De Nigris, E., Tumur, I., Ferriter, M., Beverley, C., Parry, G., Rooney, G., & Sutcliffe, P. (2006) · Health Technology Assessment · doi:10.3310/hta10330 · Cited by 357 · see citing works
Elkan, Kendrick, Hewitt, Robinson, Tolley, Blair, Dewey, Williams, & Brummell (2000) · Health Technology Assessment · doi:10.3310/hta4130 · Cited by 297 · see citing works
Royle, P., & Waugh, N. (2003) · Health Technology Assessment · doi:10.3310/hta7340 · Cited by 194 · see citing works
Psychological treatment for insomnia in the regulation of long-term hypnotic drug use
Morgan, K., Dixon, S., Mathers, N., Thompson, J., & Tomeny, M. (2004) · Health Technology Assessment · doi:10.3310/hta8080 · Cited by 166 · see citing works
Issues in methodological research: perspectives from researchers and commissioners
Lilford, R. J., Richardson, A., Stevens, A., Fitzpatrick, R., Edwards, S., Rock, F., & Hutton, J. L. (2001) · Health Technology Assessment · doi:10.3310/hta5080 · Cited by 132 · see citing works
Flagged first, then by citations
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Saliba, W., Nitzan, O., Chazan, B., & Elias, M. (2015) · Diabetes, Metabolic Syndrome and Obesity: Targets and Therapy · doi:10.2147/dmso.s51792 · Cited by 345 · see citing works
Performance of the dipstick screening test as a predictor of negative urine culture
Marques, A. G., Doi, A. M., Pasternak, J., Damascena, M. D. S., França, C. N., & Martino, M. D. V. (2017) · Einstein (São Paulo) · doi:10.1590/s1679-45082017ao3936 · Cited by 33 · see citing works
“Nonetheless, this study revealed that urine cultures can be ruled out in 96% of cases with normal dipstick test results, supporting the use of this test as a valuable, economic and rapid alternative for urinary tract infection screening.(29) Urine culture results in this study indicated that the dipstick test may give…”
Result
- Authors
- Little, P., Turner, S., Rumsby, K., Warner, G., Moore, M., Lowes, J., Smith, H., Hawke, C., Turner, D., Leydon, G., Arscott, A., & Mullee, M.
- Affiliations
- University of Southampton (GB)
- The University of Sydney (AU)
- Corresponding author
- Little, P
- Venue
- Health Technology Assessment
- Published
- 2009-03
- Volume
- 13
- Issue
- 19
- Pages
- iii-iv, ix
- ISSN
- 1366-5278 (ISSN-L)
- 2046-4924
- OpenAlex
- W2091185840
- Cited by
- 137
- References
- 12
- Citations by year
- 2026: 7 · 2025: 4 · 2024: 6 · 2023: 4 · 2022: 8 · 2021: 13 · 2020: 21 · 2019: 8 · 2018: 2 · 2017: 11 · 2016: 4 · 2015: 14 · 2014: 5 · 2013: 8 · 2012: 3
- FWCI
- 0.85
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- diamond
- doi.org
- Locations
- Health Technology Assessment (publishedVersion, cc-by)
- PubMed (publishedVersion)
- DOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals) (submittedVersion, cc-by-sa)
- ePrints Soton (University of Southampton) (submittedVersion)
- UEA Digital Repository (University of East Anglia) (submittedVersion)
- Funders
- Health Technology Assessment programme (97/14/06)
- Topics
- Health Sciences › Medicine › Epidemiology › Urinary Tract Infections Management
- Health Sciences › Medicine › Pediatrics, Perinatology and Child Health › Pediatric Urology and Nephrology Studies
- Life Sciences › Immunology and Microbiology › Applied Microbiology and Biotechnology › Antibiotic Use and Resistance
- Keywords
- urinary tract infection, urine dipstick, nitrite, leucocyte esterase, empirical antibiotic prescribing, delayed antibiotic prescribing, antibiotic resistance, urethral syndrome, cost-effectiveness, natural history of infection, primary care management, symptom duration, patient perceptions of treatment, diagnostic accuracy
- MeSH terms
- Algorithms, Anti-Bacterial Agents, Attitude to Health, Cost-Benefit Analysis, Decision Trees, Female, Humans, Practice Patterns, Physicians', Predictive Value of Tests, Primary Health Care, Reagent Strips, Research Design, Severity of Illness Index, Time Factors, Urinary Tract Infections, Women, Reproducibility of Results, Cohort Studies, Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic, Patient Selection, Qualitative Research
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