Bacteriuria Screening: Evaluation of Current Methods

  • Alan T. Evangelista
Part of the Advances in Experimental Medicine and Biology book series (AEMB, volume 224)


Diagnostic screens for patient specimens of high frequency such as blood and urine are advantageous in the current health care climate which places emphasis on cost containment and the rapid turn around time of result reporting. Over the past few years rapid diagnostic methods for the detection of bacteriuria have increased in availability for the clinical microbiology laboratory. The advantages and limitations of these new systems can be evaluated through the performance of carefully designed comparative studies with reference urine culture methods. By reviewing published reports as well as conducting in-house parallel studies microbiologists can evaluate the newer methods in terms of sensitivity, specificity and predictive values. Additional parameters to be considered during an evaluation include workload efficiency based on time studies, impact on routine workflow, hands-on technologist time, total turnaround time and cost effectiveness. Historically, microbiologists and other lab professionals have approached new technology either directly or indirectly with these parameters in mind. However, under the new hospital Medicare prospective payment programs based on diagnostic related groups (DRG) this approach to new methodologies is now essential in the day-to-day operation of the lab.


Acridine Orange Urine Specimen Acute Pyelonephritis Urine Screening Leukocyte Esterase 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. 1.
    Kass, E.H. Bacteriuria and the diagnosis of infections of the urinary tract. Arch. Intern. Med. 100: 709–714, 1957.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Kass, E.H., and M. Finland. Asymptomatic infections of the urinary tract. Trans. Assoc. Am. Physicians 69: 56–63, 1956.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Sabath, L.D. and D. Charles. Urinary tract infections in the female. Obstet. Gynecol. 55: 1625–1705, 1980.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    McFadyen, I.R. S.J. Eykyn, M.H.N. Gardner, et al. Bacteriuria in pregnancy. J. Obstet. Gynaecol. 80: 385–405, 1973.Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Warren, J.W., J.H. Tenney, J.M. Hoopes, H.L. Muncie and W.C. Anthony. A prospective microbiologic study of bacteriuria in patients with chronic indwelling catheters. J. Infect. Dis. 146: 719–723, 1982.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Platt, R., B.F. Polk, B. Murdock and B. Rosner. Mortality associated withnosocomial urinary tract infection. N. Engl. J. Med. 307: 637–642, 1982.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Garibaldi, R.A., J.P. Burke, M.L. Dickman, and C.B. Smith. Factors pre disposing to bacteriuria during indwelling urethral catheterization. N. Engl. J. Med. 291: 215–219, 1974.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Piatt, R. Quantitative definition of bacteriuria. Am. J. Med 75 IB: 44–52, 1983.Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Stamm, W.E., K.F. Wagner, R. Amsel et al. Courses of the acute urethral syndrome. N. Engl. J. Med. 303: 409–415, 1980.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Mond, N.C., A. Percival, J.D. Williams and W. Brumfitt. Presentation, diagnosis and treatment of urinary tract infections in general practice. Lancet 1: 514–516, 1965.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Stamm, W.E. Interpretation of urine cultures. Clin. Micobiol. Newsl. 5: 15–17, 1983.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Albers, A.C. and R.D. Fletcher. Accuracy of the calibrated loop transfer. J. Clin. Microbiol. 18: 40–42, 1983.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Grout, F.V. and R.C. Tilton. Rapid screening of urine by gram stain, acridine orange stain, and Autobac MTS. Abstr. Annu. Meet. Am. Soc. Microbiol. C2: 312, 1983.Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Bartlett, R.C., D. O’Neill and J.C. McLaughlin. Detection of bac-teriuria by leukocyte esterase, nitrite, and the Automicrobic System. Am. J. Clin. Pathol. 82: 683–687, 1984.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Granato, P.A. Evaluation of a dip-slide device for enumeration of bacteria in urine. Lab. Med. 11: 246–250, 1980.Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Gantrill, H.F. and B.H. Stokes. Comparison of Bac-T-Screen, leuko cyte esterase and nitrite strips to conventional urine cultures. Abstr. Annu. Meet. Interscience Conf. Antimicrob. Agents Chemother. 733: 219, 1983.Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Hoyt, S.M. and P.D. Ellner. Evaluation of the bacteriuria detection device. J. Clin. Microbiol. 18:882–884,1983.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    David, J.R., C.E. Stager and G.F. Araj. Clinical laboratory evaluation of a bacteriuria detection device for urine screening. Am. J. Clin. Pathol. 81: 48–53, 1984.Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Park, C.H., D.L. Hixon, C.C. McClintock et al. Rapid detection of insignificant bacteriuria by concomitant use of Lumac System and Gram’s stain. Am. J. Clin. Pathol. 82: 593–596, 1984.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Evangelista, A.T. and J. DeObaldia. Bacteriuria screening by bio-luminescence: clinical evaluation of the Lumac/3M system. Abstr. Annu. Meet. Am. Soc. Microbiol. C179: 266, 1984.Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Kelly, M.T. and L.C. Balfour. Evaluation and optimization of urine screening by Autobac. J. Clin. Microbiol. 13: 677–680, 1981.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Pezzlo, M.T., G.L. Tan, E.M. Peterson and L.M. de la Maza. Screening of urine cultures by three automated systems. J. Clin. Microbiol 15: 468–474, 1982.PubMedGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Plenum Press, New York 1987

Authors and Affiliations

  • Alan T. Evangelista
    • 1
  1. 1.Microbiology DepartmentCooper Hospital/University Medical CenterCamdenUSA

Personalised recommendations