Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Is a dipstick test sufficient to exclude urinary tract infection in women with overactive bladder?

  • Original Article
  • Published:
International Urogynecology Journal Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Introduction and hypothesis

A dipstick test is recommended to screen for urinary tract infection in patients with overactive bladder (OAB). It was the aim of this study to test if a dipstick test is sufficient to identify patients with urinary tract infection attending a urological private practice because of OAB.

Methods

All patients who attended the practice because of OAB symptoms were routinely catheterized; a urine specimen was tested with dipstick, the spun sediment was examined microscopically, and the specimen was sent for microbiological examination.

Results

Two thousand two hundred fifty-two patients were examined. Of 1,754 patients with negative dipstick screening, 353 patients (20.1%) had growth of ≥103 colony forming units. The dipstick test had a sensitivity of 0.442 and a specificity of 0.865 for the correct identification of urinary tract infection.

Conclusions

Dipstick screening is not sufficient to identify patients with urinary tract infection and symptoms of OAB.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

Abbreviations

OAB:

Overactive bladder

CFU:

Colony forming units

UTI:

Urinary tract infection

References

  1. Abrams P, Cardozo L, Fall M, Griffiths DJ et al (2002) The standardisation of terminology of lower urinary tract function. Neurourol Urodyn 21:167–178

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. Stewart WF, Van Rooyen JB, Cundiff GW, Abrams P et al (2003) Prevalence and burden of overactive bladder in the United States. World J Urol 20:327–336

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Staskin D, Hilton P, Emmanuel A et al (2005) Initial assessment of incontinence. In: Abrams P, Cardozo L, Khoury S, Wein A (eds) Incontinence. 3rd International Consultation on Incontinence. Health, Plymouth, pp 485–518

    Google Scholar 

  4. Clinical and Laboratory Standards Institute (2009) Performance standards for antimicrobial susceptibility testing: 19th informational supplement. CLSI document M100-S19, 19th edn. Clinical and Laboratory Standards Institute, Wayne

  5. Altman DG, Bland JM (1994) Diagnostic tests 2: predictive values. BMJ 309:102

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Mitteness LS, Barker JC (1995) Stigmatizing a “normal” condition: urinary incontinence in late life. Med Anthropol Q 9:188–210

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Ward KL, Hilton P, Browning J, on behalf of the UK and Ireland TVT Trial Group (2000) A randomized trial of colposuspension and tension-free vaginal tape (TVT) for primary genuine stress incontinence. Neurourol Urodyn 20:386–389

    Google Scholar 

  8. Reeves P, Irwin D, Kelleher C, Milsom I et al (2006) The current and future burden and cost of overactive bladder in five European countries. Eur Urol 50:1050–1057

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Buchsbaum GM, Albushies DT, Guzick DS (2004) Utility of urine reagent strip in screening women with incontinence for urinary tract infection. Int Urogynecol J Pelvic Floor Dysfunct 15:391–393

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Sultana RV, Zalstein S, Cameron P, Campbell D (2001) Dipstick urinalysis and the accuracy of the clinical diagnosis of urinary tract infection. J Emerg Med 20:13–19

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Al Daghistani HI, Abdel-Dayem M (2002) Diagnostic value of various urine tests in the Jordanian population with urinary tract infection. Clin Chem Lab Med 40:1048–1051

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Semeniuk H, Church D (1999) Evaluation of the leukocyte esterase and nitrite urine dipstick screening tests for detection of bacteriuria in women with suspected uncomplicated urinary tract infections. J Clin Microbiol 37:3051–3052

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Gerber CS, Brendler CB (2002) Evaluation of the urologic patient: history, physical examination, and urinalysis. In: Campbell MF, Walsh PC, Retik AB (eds) Campbell’s Urology, 8th edn. Saunders, Philadelphia, pp 83–110

    Google Scholar 

  14. National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence (2006) Urinary incontinence: the management of urinary incontinence in women. NICE Guideline CG40

Download references

Conflicts of interest

None.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Berlin, Germany

    Elke Hessdoerfer

  2. Frauenklinik der Ludwig-Maximilians-Universität Muenchen, Munich, Germany

    Katharina Jundt

  3. Beckenboden Zentrum Muenchen, Denninger Str. 44, 81679, Munich, Germany

    Ursula Peschers

Authors
  1. Elke Hessdoerfer
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Katharina Jundt
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Ursula Peschers
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Ursula Peschers.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Hessdoerfer, E., Jundt, K. & Peschers, U. Is a dipstick test sufficient to exclude urinary tract infection in women with overactive bladder?. Int Urogynecol J 22, 229–232 (2011). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00192-010-1263-5

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00192-010-1263-5

Keywords

Search

Navigation