This Article Full Text (PDF) Alert me when this article is cited Alert me if a correction is posted Services Similar articles in this journal Similar articles in PubMed Alert me to new issues of the journal Download to citation manager Reprints and Permissions Copyright Information Books from ASM Press MicrobeWorld Citing Articles Citing Articles via HighWire Citing Articles via Google Scholar Google Scholar Articles by Pezzlo, M T Articles by de la Maza, L M Search for Related Content PubMed PubMed Citation Articles by Pezzlo, M T Articles by de la Maza, L M

 Previous Article  |  Next Article 

J Clin Microbiol. 1989 April; 27(4): 716-720

Rapid bioluminescence method for bacteriuria screening.

Department of Pathology, University of California Irvine Medical Center, Orange 92668.

ABSTRACT

A study was performed to evaluate the UTIscreen (Los Alamos Diagnostics, Los Alamos, N. Mex.), a rapid bioluminescence bacteriuria screen. The UTIscreen was compared with three other rapid bacteriuria screens: the Bac-T-Screen (Vitek Systems, Hazelwood, Mo.), an automated filtration device; the Chemstrip LN (Boehringer Mannheim Diagnostics, BioDynamics, Indianapolis, Ind.), an enzyme dipstick; and the Gram stain. A semiquantitative plate culture was used as the reference method. Of the 1,000 specimens tested, 276 had colony counts of greater than 10(5) CFU/ml by the culture method. Of these, the UTIscreen detected 96% (265 of 276) using greater than or equal to 5% of the integrated light output of the standard reading as a positive interpretive breakpoint, the Bac-T-Screen detected 96% (266 of 276), the Chemstrip LN detected 90% (249 of 276), and the Gram stain detected 96% (264 of 276). Of the 214 probable pathogens isolated at greater than 10(5) CFU/ml, the UTIscreen detected 95% (204 of 214), the Bac-T-Screen detected 98% (210 of 214), the Chemstrip LN detected 92% (198 of 214), and the Gram stain detected 98% (209 of 214). The predictive values of negative test results at greater than 10(5) CFU/ml for the UTIscreen, the Bac-T-Screen, the Chemstrip LN, and the Gram stain were 98, 97, 93, and 98%, respectively. The overall specificities at greater than 10(5) CFU/ml for the UTIscreen, the Bac-T-Screen, the Chemstrip LN, and the Gram stain were 70, 48, 51, and 69%, respectively. There were 532 specimens with colony counts of >10(3) CFU/ml, and of these, the UTIscreen, the Bac-T-Screen, the Chemstrip LN, and the Gram stain detected 72, 81, 76, and 73%, respectively. Of the 249 probable pathogens isolated at >10(3) CFU/ml, the UTIscreen, the Bac-T-Screen, the Chemstrip LN, and the Gram stain detected 91, 95, 89, and 93%, respectively. The overall specificities at > 10(3) CFU/ml for these methods were 79, 55, 57, and 78%, respectively. The cost per test for detection was approximately $0.50 for the Chemstrip LN. Overall, the UTIscreen is rapid and easy to perform; its sensitivity compared favorably with those of the other screening methods; it had higher specificity than the Bac-T-Screen and Chemstrip LN; and it allowed for bathing of specimen.

This article has been cited by other articles:

• Pancholi, P., Pavletich, K., Della-Latta, P. (2005). Rapid Screening of Urine Specimens for Bacteriuria by the Cellenium System. J. Clin. Microbiol. 43: 5288-5290 [Abstract] [Full Text]  
• Graham, J C, Galloway, A (2001). ACP Best Practice No 167: The laboratory diagnosis of urinary tract infection. J. Clin. Pathol. 54: 911-919 [Abstract] [Full Text]