Urine analysis is the method of choice for the primary diagnosis of UTI. This method is performed using two techniques, including manual and enhanced. The manual technique is time-consuming and operator-dependent and offers a relatively low diagnostic performance. The enhanced method has been shown to provide an accurate test for detecting UTIs, and it needs a lower volume of urine compared to the conventional method. However, the clinical utility of the enhanced technique is less specified in children, especially in Iran.
We found that in standard UA, the sensitivity of pyuria for the initial diagnosis of UTI was 90.9%, and its specificity was 80.7%. In the enhanced method, the sensitivity of pyuria and bacteriuria for identifying UTI rose to 97.7% and its specificity to 93.1%, with PPV and NPV of 81.1% and 93.9%, respectively. These findings show that the enhanced technique was superior to the manual method. The higher sensitivity and specificity of the enhanced method indicated that this technique could accurately diagnose patients with UTI, ruling out healthy patients at an acceptable rate. In a similar study by Shah et al. (
10) conducted on 703 children with suspected UTI, the sensitivity of the enhanced method was 77.5%, and its PPV was reported as 84.4%. In our study, the sensitivity of the enhanced method for detecting UTI was 97.7%; the specificity was 93.1%, and PPV and NPV were 81.1% and 939%, respectively. In our study, the sensitivity of pyuria (10 ≥ WBC) calculated by the enhanced method alone in predicting UTI was equal to 97.7%, and its PPV was equal to 59.7 %. However, in Shah et al.’s study (
10), the sensitivity was 83.6%, and PPV was 53.5%. In addition, Shah et al. reported a sensitivity of 79.5% and PPV of 37.5% for pyuria for the diagnosis of UTI (
10), which were lower compared to the respective values (90.9% and 57.1%) obtained in our study.
In another study by Suresh et al. (
11), it was shown that both enhanced and standard UA techniques had low sensitivity (< 70%), while their specificities were 88% and 92%, respectively. Kabilan (
12) reported the sensitivity and specificity of the enhanced UA method as 89.5% and 93.2%, respectively, suggesting that the enhanced technique had a better diagnostic performance compared to the manual method.
In a study by Fernandez et al. (
8), the sensitivity of the nitrite test was reported to be 47.37%, and its specificity was 93.94%. In our study, the sensitivity and specificity of the nitrite test for UTI diagnosis were 56.8% and 98.7%, respectively. Fernandez et al. (
8) reported that the sensitivity and specificity of the leukocyte esterase test for UTI diagnosis were 42.11% and 75.76%, respectively. In our study, the sensitivity and specificity of the leukocyte esterase test for detecting UTI were calculated as 72.7% and 94.5%, respectively.
In Khodami et al.’s (
13) study, in which 600 patients were enrolled, the sensitivity and specificity of the standard UA method for detecting UTI were described as 64.8% and 89%, along with the PPV and NPV of 51.3% and 93.4%, respectively. In our study, the sensitivity, specificity, PPV, and NPV of pyuria according to the standard method were 90.9%, 80.7%, 57.1%, and 96.9%, respectively.
In a study by Lin et al. in 2000, conducted on 230 febrile children under one year of age, pyuria in the enhanced method (defined as ≥ 10 WBC using a hemacytometer) delivered a significantly higher sensitivity and PPV than the same test in the context of the standard technique (WBC ≥ 5) (
14).
Urinary tract infections are among the most common infectious diseases in children, and a delay in their diagnosis can have serious harmful consequences. Currently, UA using a dipstick and standard cell counting is used to predict the risk of UTI in children. In this study, it was shown that the enhanced method had higher sensitivity, specificity, PPV, and NPV than the standard UA method, providing a faster diagnostic modality.
Among different urine collection methods, collection through a urinary catheter or using the suprapubic method are considered more accurate and superior methods to diagnose UTIs; however, due to the invasive nature of these methods, they cannot be used in all children suspected of having UTI. The importance of this issue is more pronounced in children who are not toilet-trained and cannot use the more acceptable method of midstream urine collection. Therefore, such young children require using a urine bag for specimen collection, increasing the possibility of contamination. Thus, if positive results are yielded, further investigation is required. It should be noted that culture results from urine samples collected through urine collection bags deliver a relatively high NPV for urinary infections.
5.1. Study Limitations
This study suffered from several limitations. First, our sample size was relatively small compared to similar studies. Second, our specimens were examined by various laboratory technicians; therefore, our results may be hampered by the possibly different experience levels of these technicians. However, we believe that this factor increases the generalizability of our data since many hospital laboratories have settings similar to that of our study.
5.2. Conclusions
Our study showed that the enhanced UA technique offered a better diagnostic procedure for screening UTIs in children compared to the manual technique. This method should be considered the primary laboratory option when evaluating children with presumptive UTIs due to its accuracy and cost-effectiveness. A lower volume of urine is required in the enhanced technique, which adds to its value considering that urine volume is a challenge when testing pediatric populations.