Tools for Practice Outils pour la pratique

#324 Is booking an urgent UTI appointment the best sign of a UTI?

What helps in diagnosing symptomatic uncomplicated urinary tract infections (UTI) in adult women?

Individual symptoms and leukocytes on urinalysis generally add little to diagnosis. Presence of nitrites increases the probability of UTI, but their absence means little. About 60% of women presenting to primary care with possible UTI have a UTI (before any history, physical or testing). A single urine culture likely misses cases, meaning prevalence is even higher.

CFPCLearn Logo

Reading Tools for Practice Article can earn you MainPro+ Credits

La lecture d'articles d'outils de pratique peut vous permettre de gagner des crédits MainPro+

Join Now S’inscrire maintenant

Already a CFPCLearn Member? Log in

Déjà abonné à CMFCApprendre? Ouvrir une session

  • Prevalence of UTI: In primary care, 49%-79% women presenting with possible UTI have a UTI depending on criteria for positive culture.1 Others found average prevalence of 55%, 59%, 40-60%.2-4
  • UTI symptoms: 4 systematic reviews1,3-5 (4-16 studies, 948-3711 women) in family practice or emergency departments. The largest1 in primary care pooled data with 16 studies and 3711 patients:
    • Frequency: Positive likelihood ratio (LR+)=1.09 and Negative Likelihood Ratio (LR-)=0.58
    • Dysuria and urgency similar: LR+= 1.17-1.22, LR-= 0.61-0.7
    • Others found similar3-5 with highest LR+=2.3 for any symptom.4
    • Therefore, clinician elicited symptoms are not very helpful.
  • Urine dip (urinalysis): 6 systematic reviews2-4,6-8 (4-43 studies, 948-12,554 women). The largest pooling primary care data3 (11 studies, 2813 patients):
    • Leukocytes (≥1+):3 LR+=1.4 and LR-=0.44
      • Others2,4,6,7 found LR- similar but LR+=1.0-4.9.
      • Overall, leukocytes not very helpful.
    • Nitrite (≥1+):3 LR+=6.5 and LR-=0.58
      • Others2,4,6,7 found LR- similar and LR+=1.5-29 (highly inconsistent).
      • Overall, nitrites are helpful ‘ruling-in’ when positive; not helpful “ruling-out” if negative.
    • Blood (≥1+):4 LR+=2.1 and LR-=0.3
  • Many limitations, examples include no pooling,4,6 differing (102-108) colony forming units as culture gold standard,2,6,7 older than 30 years,8 and differing populations/asymptomatic patients.7
  • Urine culture is an imperfect ‘gold’ standard (likely misses cases). Examples:
    • Of 220 symptomatic women, 80% had a positive culture but 96% were coli positive on Polymerase Chain Reaction (PCR).9
    • Of 42 untreated symptomatic women with initially negative cultures, 31% had a positive culture within 6 weeks.10
  • Likelihood ratios provide more information than sensitivity/specificity.
    • LR+ for making diagnosis: ≥10 very helpful, 5-9.9 good, 2-4.9 moderate help and <2 provides little help.
    • LR- for ruling-out diagnosis: ≤0.1 very helpful, 0.11-0.2 good, 0.21-0.5 moderate help and >0.5 provides little help.

Latest Tools for Practice
Derniers outils pour la pratique

#353 - Turn Down the Heat! Can non-hormonal drugs improve vasomotor symptoms in menopause? (Free)

Do non-hormonal medications improve menopausal vasomotor symptoms?
Read Lire 0.25 credits available Crédits disponibles

#352 Do-It-Yourself Hearing Aids (Free)

Do self-fitted hearing aids improve hearing for adults with mild to moderate-severe hearing loss?
Read Lire 0.25 credits available Crédits disponibles

#351 Flaked out? Topical treatment for seborrheic dermatitis (Free)

How effective are topical treatments for adult facial or scalp seborrheic dermatitis?
Read Lire 0.25 credits available Crédits disponibles

This content is certified for MainPro+ Credits, log in to access

Ce contenu est certifié pour les crédits MainPro+, Ouvrir une session

  • Jennifer Young MD CCFP-EM
  • Betsy Thomas BSc. Pharm
  • G. Michael Allan MD CCFP

1. Giesen L, Cousins G, Dimitrov B et al. BMC Family Practice 2010, 11:78

2. Deville W, Yzermans J, van Duijn N et al. BMC Urology 2004, 4:4.

3. Medina-Bombardó and Jover-Palmer. BMC Family Practice 2011, 12:111.

4. Meister L, Morley E, Scheer D et al. Acad Emerg Med. 2013; 20:632–45.

5. Bent S, Nalmothu B, Simel D et al. JAMA 2002 May 22/29; 287:20,2701-10.

6. Schiemann G, Kniehl E, Gebhardt K et al. Deutsches Ärzteblatt International 2010; 107(21): 361–7.

7. St. John A, Boyd J, Lowes A, et al. Am J Clin Pathol. 2005; 125;428-36

8. Hurlbut T, Littenberg B. Am J Clin Pathol. 1991; 96:5,582-88.

9. Heytens S, De Sutter A, Coorevits L et al. Clin Microbiol Infect 2017; 23:647-52.

10. Ferry S, Holm S, Stenlund H et al. Scand J Infect Dis. 2004; 36:296-301

Authors do not have any conflicts of interest to declare.

Les auteurs n’ont aucun conflit d’intérêts à déclarer.