Dataset Information

Comparison of microbiological diagnosis of urinary tract infection in young children by routine health service laboratories and a research laboratory: Diagnostic cohort study.

ABSTRACT:

Objectives

To compare the validity of diagnosis of urinary tract infection (UTI) through urine culture between samples processed in routine health service laboratories and those processed in a research laboratory.

Population and methods

We conducted a prospective diagnostic cohort study in 4808 acutely ill children aged <5 years attending UK primary health care. UTI, defined as pure/predominant growth ?105 CFU/mL of a uropathogen (the reference standard), was diagnosed at routine health service laboratories and a central research laboratory by culture of urine samples. We calculated areas under the receiver-operator curve (AUC) for UTI predicted by pre-specified symptoms, signs and dipstick test results (the "index test"), separately according to whether samples were obtained by clean catch or nappy (diaper) pads.

Results

251 (5.2%) and 88 (1.8%) children were classified as UTI positive by health service and research laboratories respectively. Agreement between laboratories was moderate (kappa = 0.36; 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.29, 0.43), and better for clean catch (0.54; 0.45, 0.63) than nappy pad samples (0.20; 0.12, 0.28). In clean catch samples, the AUC was lower for health service laboratories (AUC = 0.75; 95% CI 0.69, 0.80) than the research laboratory (0.86; 0.79, 0.92). Values of AUC were lower in nappy pad samples (0.65 [0.61, 0.70] and 0.79 [0.70, 0.88] for health service and research laboratory positivity, respectively) than clean catch samples.

Conclusions

The agreement of microbiological diagnosis of UTI comparing routine health service laboratories with a research laboratory was moderate for clean catch samples and poor for nappy pad samples and reliability is lower for nappy pad than for clean catch samples. Positive results from the research laboratory appear more likely to reflect real UTIs than those from routine health service laboratories, many of which (particularly from nappy pad samples) could be due to contamination. Health service laboratories should consider adopting procedures used in the research laboratory for paediatric urine samples. Primary care clinicians should try to obtain clean catch samples, even in very young children.

SUBMITTER: Birnie K

PROVIDER: S-EPMC5310769 | biostudies-literature | 2017

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Comparison of microbiological diagnosis of urinary tract infection in young children by routine health service laboratories and a research laboratory: Diagnostic cohort study.

Birnie Kate K Hay Alastair D AD Wootton Mandy M Howe Robin R MacGowan Alasdair A Whiting Penny P Lawton Michael M Delaney Brendan B Downing Harriet H Dudley Jan J Hollingworth William W Lisles Catherine C Little Paul P O'Brien Kathryn K Pickles Timothy T Rumsby Kate K Thomas-Jones Emma E Van der Voort Judith J Waldron Cherry-Ann CA Harman Kim K Hood Kerenza K Butler Christopher C CC Sterne Jonathan A C JA

PloS one 20170215 2

<h4>Objectives</h4>To compare the validity of diagnosis of urinary tract infection (UTI) through urine culture between samples processed in routine health service laboratories and those processed in a research laboratory.<h4>Population and methods</h4>We conducted a prospective diagnostic cohort study in 4808 acutely ill children aged <5 years attending UK primary health care. UTI, defined as pure/predominant growth ≥105 CFU/mL of a uropathogen (the reference standard), was diagnosed at routine ...[more]

PMID: 28199403

Similar Datasets

Project description:Background & objectivesAn outbreak of respiratory illness of unknown aetiology was reported from Hubei province of Wuhan, People's Republic of China, in December 2019. The outbreak was attributed to a novel coronavirus (CoV), named as severe acute respiratory syndrome (SARS)-CoV-2 and the disease as COVID-19. Within one month, cases were reported from 25 countries. In view of the novel viral strain with reported high morbidity, establishing early countrywide diagnosis to detect imported cases became critical. Here we describe the role of a countrywide network of VRDLs in early diagnosis of COVID-19.MethodsThe Indian Council of Medical Research (ICMR)-National Institute of Virology (NIV), Pune, established screening as well as confirmatory assays for SARS-CoV-2. A total of 13 VRDLs were provided with the E gene screening real-time reverse transcription-polymerase chain reaction (rRT-PCR) assay. VRDLs were selected on the basis of their presence near an international airport/seaport and their past performance. The case definition for testing included all individuals with travel history to Wuhan and symptomatic individuals with travel history to other parts of China. This was later expanded to include symptomatic individuals returning from Singapore, Japan, Hong Kong, Thailand and South Korea.ResultsWithin a week of standardization of the test at NIV, all VRDLs could initiate testing for SARS-CoV-2. Till February 29, 2020, a total of 2,913 samples were tested. This included both 654 individuals quarantined in the two camps and others fitting within the case definition. The quarantined individuals were tested twice - at days 0 and 14. All tested negative on both occasions. Only three individuals belonging to different districts in Kerala were found to be positive.Interpretation & conclusionsSudden emergence of SARS-CoV-2 and its potential to cause a pandemic posed an unsurmountable challenge to the public health system of India. However, concerted efforts of various arms of the Government of India resulted in a well-coordinated action at each level. India has successfully demonstrated its ability to establish quick diagnosis of SARS-CoV-2 at NIV, Pune, and the testing VRDLs.

Project description:BackgroundStrengthening the quality of laboratory diagnostics is a key part of building global health capacity. In 2015, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), the Southeast European Center for Surveillance and Control of Infectious Diseases (SECID), WHO European Regional Office (WHO EURO) and American Public Health Laboratories (APHL) collaborated to address laboratory quality training needs in Southeast Europe. Together, they developed a quality assurance (QA) mentorship program for six national laboratories (Laboratories A-E) in five countries utilizing APHL international consultants. The primary goal of the mentorship program was to help laboratories become recognized by WHO as National Influenza Centers (NICs). The program aimed to do this by strengthening influenza laboratory capacity by implementing quality management systems (QMS) action steps. After 1 year, we evaluated participants' progress by the proportion of QMS action steps they had successfully implemented, as well as the value of mentorship as perceived by laboratory mentees, mentors, and primary program stakeholders from SECID and WHO EURO.MethodsTo understand perceived value we used the qualitative method of semi-structured interviews, applying grounded theory to the thematic analysis.ResultsMentees showed clear progress, having completed 32 to 68% [median: 62%] of planned QMS action steps in their laboratories. In regards to the perceived value of the program, we found strong evidence that laboratory mentorship enhances laboratory quality improvement by promoting accountability to QMS implementation, raising awareness of the importance of QMS, and fostering collaborative problem solving.ConclusionIn conclusion, we found that significant accomplishments can be achieved when QA programs provide dedicated technical mentorship for QMS implementation. Since the start of the mentoring, Laboratory "B" has achieved NIC recognition by WHO, while two other labs made substantial progress and are scheduled for recognition in 2018. In the future, we recommend that mentorship is more inclusive of laboratory directors, and that programs evaluate the amount of staff time needed for mentorship activities, including lab-based assessments and mentoring.

Dataset Information

Comparison of microbiological diagnosis of urinary tract infection in young children by routine health service laboratories and a research laboratory: Diagnostic cohort study.

Objectives

Population and methods

Results

Conclusions

Publications

Comparison of microbiological diagnosis of urinary tract infection in young children by routine health service laboratories and a research laboratory: Diagnostic cohort study.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets