14
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
0 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: found
      Is Open Access

      Clinical accuracy of point-of-care urine culture in general practice

      research-article

      Read this article at

      Bookmark
          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

          Abstract

          Objective

          To assess the clinical accuracy (sensitivity (SEN), specificity (SPE), positive predictive value and negative predictive value) of two point-of-care (POC) urine culture tests for the identification of urinary tract infection (UTI) in general practice.

          Design

          Prospective diagnostic accuracy study comparing two index tests (Flexicult™ SSI-Urinary Kit or ID Flexicult™) with a reference standard (urine culture performed in the microbiological department).

          Setting

          General practice in the Copenhagen area patients. Adult female patients consulting their general practitioner with suspected uncomplicated, symptomatic UTI.

          Main outcome measures

          (1) Overall accuracy of POC urine culture in general practice. (2) Individual accuracy of each of the two POC tests in this study. (3) Accuracy of POC urine culture in general practice with enterococci excluded, since enterococci are known to multiply in boric acid used for transportation for the reference standard. (4) Accuracy based on expert reading of photographs of POC urine cultures performed in general practice. Standard culture performed in the microbiological department was used as reference standard for all four measures.

          Results

          Twenty general practices recruited 341 patients with suspected uncomplicated UTI. The overall agreement between index test and reference was 0.76 (CI: 0.71–0.80), SEN 0.88 (CI: 0.83–0.92) and SPE 0.55 (CI: 0.46–0.64). The two POC tests produced similar results individually. Overall agreement with enterococci excluded was 0.82 (0.77–0.86) and agreement between expert readings of photographs and reference results was 0.81 (CI: 0.76–0.85).

          Conclusions

          POC culture used in general practice has high SEN but low SPE. Low SPE could be due to both misinterpretation in general practice and an imperfect reference standard.

          Registration number

          ClinicalTrials.gov NCT02323087.

          Related collections

          Most cited references28

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: found
          • Article: not found

          Effect of antibiotic prescribing in primary care on antimicrobial resistance in individual patients: systematic review and meta-analysis.

          To systematically review the literature and, where appropriate, meta-analyse studies investigating subsequent antibiotic resistance in individuals prescribed antibiotics in primary care. Systematic review with meta-analysis. Observational and experimental studies identified through Medline, Embase, and Cochrane searches. Review methods Electronic searches using MeSH terms and text words identified 4373 papers. Two independent reviewers assessed quality of eligible studies and extracted data. Meta-analyses were conducted for studies presenting similar outcomes. The review included 24 studies; 22 involved patients with symptomatic infection and two involved healthy volunteers; 19 were observational studies (of which two were prospective) and five were randomised trials. In five studies of urinary tract bacteria (14 348 participants), the pooled odds ratio (OR) for resistance was 2.5 (95% confidence interval 2.1 to 2.9) within 2 months of antibiotic treatment and 1.33 (1.2 to 1.5) within 12 months. In seven studies of respiratory tract bacteria (2605 participants), pooled ORs were 2.4 (1.4 to 3.9) and 2.4 (1.3 to 4.5) for the same periods, respectively. Studies reporting the quantity of antibiotic prescribed found that longer duration and multiple courses were associated with higher rates of resistance. Studies comparing the potential for different antibiotics to induce resistance showed no consistent effects. Only one prospective study reported changes in resistance over a long period; pooled ORs fell from 12.2 (6.8 to 22.1) at 1 week to 6.1 (2.8 to 13.4) at 1 month, 3.6 (2.2 to 6.0) at 2 months, and 2.2 (1.3 to 3.6) at 6 months. Individuals prescribed an antibiotic in primary care for a respiratory or urinary infection develop bacterial resistance to that antibiotic. The effect is greatest in the month immediately after treatment but may persist for up to 12 months. This effect not only increases the population carriage of organisms resistant to first line antibiotics, but also creates the conditions for increased use of second line antibiotics in the community.
            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: found
            • Article: not found

            Diagnostic test accuracy may vary with prevalence: implications for evidence-based diagnosis.

            Several studies and systematic reviews have reported results that indicate that sensitivity and specificity may vary with prevalence. We identify and explore mechanisms that may be responsible for sensitivity and specificity varying with prevalence and illustrate them with examples from the literature. Clinical and artefactual variability may be responsible for changes in prevalence and accompanying changes in sensitivity and specificity. Clinical variability refers to differences in the clinical situation that may cause sensitivity and specificity to vary with prevalence. For example, a patient population with a higher disease prevalence may include more severely diseased patients, therefore, the test performs better in this population. Artefactual variability refers to effects on prevalence and accuracy associated with study design, for example, the verification of index test results by a reference standard. Changes in prevalence influence the extent of overestimation due to imperfect reference standard classification. Sensitivity and specificity may vary in different clinical populations, and prevalence is a marker for such differences. Clinicians are advised to base their decisions on studies that most closely match their own clinical situation, using prevalence to guide the detection of differences in study population or study design.
              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: found
              • Article: not found

              The diagnosis of urinary tract infection: a systematic review.

              Urinary tract infections (UTI) are among the leading reasons for treatment in adult primary care medicine, accounting for a considerable percentage of antibiotic prescriptions. Because this problem is so common and so significant in routine clinical practice, a high level of diagnostic accuracy is essential. Antibiotics should not be prescribed excessively, particularly in view of the increasing prevalence of antibiotic resistance. Systematic review of relevant articles that were retrieved by a search of the Medline, Embase, and Cochrane Library databases. The recommendations of selected international guidelines were also taken into account, as were the German national quality standards for microbiological diagnosis. The diagnosis of UTI by clinical criteria alone has an error rate of approximately 33%. The use of refined diagnostic algorithms does not completely eliminate uncertainty. With the aid of a small number of additional diagnostic criteria, antibiotic treatment for UTI can be provided more specifically and thus more effectively. Differentiating UTI from asymptomatic bacteriuria, which usually requires no treatment, can lower the frequency of unnecessary antibiotic prescriptions.
                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Journal
                Scand J Prim Health Care
                Scand J Prim Health Care
                IPRI
                Scandinavian Journal of Primary Health Care
                Taylor & Francis
                0281-3432
                1502-7724
                June 2017
                01 June 2017
                : 35
                : 2
                : 170-177
                Affiliations
                [a ]Research Unit for General Practice and Department of General Practice, University of Copenhagen, Copenhagen, Denmark;
                [b ]Department of Veterinary Clinical and Animal Sciences, University of Copenhagen, Copenhagen, Denmark;
                [c ]Department of Clinical Microbiology, Rigshospitalet, Copenhagen, Denmark
                Author notes
                CONTACT Anne Holm anneholm@ 123456sund.ku.dk Department of General Practice, University of Copenhagen, Øster Farimagsgade 5, PO Box 2099, 1014 Copenhagen, Denmark
                Article
                ipri-35-170
                10.1080/02813432.2017.1333304
                5499317
                28569603
                b3bf3276-6cfb-4118-8d72-b884e6e0aeab
                © 2017 The Author(s). Published by Informa UK Limited, trading as Taylor & Francis Group.

                This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial License ( http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/), which permits unrestricted non-commercial use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.

                History
                : 06 September 2016
                : 01 February 2017
                Funding
                Funded by: University of Copenhagen 10.13039/501100001734
                Funded by: Læge Sofus Carl Emil Friis og Hustru Olga Doris Friis’ Legat
                This study was funded by (a) 2016, University of Copenhagen, (b) Læge Sofus Carl Emil Friis og Hustru Olga Doris Friis’ Legat and (c) SSI Diagnostika (materials).
                Categories
                Research Articles

                urinary tract infections,microbiological diagnosis,culture media,point-of-care testing,general practice

                Comments

                Comment on this article