Can the Urine Dipstick Test Be an Alternative in the Screening of Urinary Tract Infections for Inpatients in the Context of a Low-Income Country?

Background: Urinary Tract Infection (UTI), a prevalent bacterial infection in adults, heavily relies on cytobacteriological examination of urine (CBEU) for diagnosis. However, in resource-limited countries, accessibility to CBEU remains hindered by cost and availability. This study aims to assess the utility of the Urinary Dipstick Test (UDT) in diagnosing UTIs among hospitalized patients in the context of limited resources. Methods: A cross-sectional study was conducted from February to May 2019, encompassing hospitalized patients who underwent CBEU at the bacteriology unit of Sour? Sanou University Hospital. UDT and CBEU were concurrently performed, and UDT’s analytical and diagnostic performance was evaluated against CBEU, considered the gold standard. Results: A total of 274 CBEU requests were registered, involving 274 patients (159 males) with a mean age of 45.8 ± 21.3 years (ranging from 1 to 90 years). UTI was confirmed in 90 patients, yielding a frequency of 32.85%. The UTI bacteriological profile was dominated by Enterobacteriaceae (75.23%), primarily Escherichia coli (60.55%). Nitrite and Leukocytes were positive in 54 (19.8%) and 157 (53.6%) of the samples tested. Among patients with confirmed UTI, Nitrite, and Leukocytes were positive in 30 (33%) and 71 (79%) patients respectively. UDT demonstrated variable performance based on nitrite and leukocyte combination: Sensitivity (57%-82%), Specificity (7%-98%), Positive Predictive Value (PPV) (43%-57%), Negative Predictive Value (NPV) (43%-67%). UDT performed slightly better in women (NPV = 88%) and inpatients without urinary catheters (NPV = 75% and PPV = 80%). Conclusion: This study underscores UDT’s potential utility in excluding UTIs among women, younger patients, and inpatients without urinary catheters, albeit with limited confidence. The UDT emerges as a complementary tool for UTI screening, particularly in resource-limited settings.

Early diagnosis and prediction of severity in acute pancreatitis using the urine trypsinogen-2 dipstick test:A prospective study

AIM： To evaluate the use of the trypsinogen-2 dipstick （Actim Pancreatitis） test for early diagnosis and prediction of severity in acute pancreatitis （AP）. METHODS： Ninety-two patients with AP were included in this study. The control group was 25 patients who had acute abdominal pain from non-pancreatic causes. Urine trypsinogen-2 dipstick test （UTDT） and conventional diagnostic tests were performed in all patients. Patients were divided by the Atlanta classification into two groups as having mild or severe pancreatitis. RESULTS： UTDT was positive in 87 （94.6%） of the AP patients and in two （8%） controls （P 〈 0.05）. Positive UTDT was found in 61 （92.4%） of 66 （71.7%） patients with mild pancreatitis and in all （100%） of the 26 （28.3%） with severe pancreatitis （P 〉 0.05）. UTDT positivity lasted longer in severe pancreatitis compared with that in mild pancreatitis （6.2 ＋ 2.5 d vs 2.0 ＋ 1.43 d, P 〈 0.05）. The sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value, negative predictive value （NPV）, positive likelihood ratio （PLR） and negative likelihood ratio （NLR） of UTDT were 91%, 72%, 96.6%, 70.4%, 3.4 and 0.1, respectively. CONCLUSION： UTDT is a simple, rapid and reliable method for use on admission. It has high specificity and low NLR for early diagnosis and prediction of severity in AP. However, its relatively low NPV does not allow trypsinogen-2 dipstick test to be a stand-alone tool for diagnosis of acute pancreatitis; the use of other conventional diagnostic tools remains a requirement.