Abstract
BACKGROUND: Urinalysis is the most popular test for evaluating emergency room patients with possible urinary tract infections (UTIs). Due to their speed and inexpensive cost, urine dipsticks are frequently performed in the Emergency Room. Although a urine dipstick test may be less expensive and time-saving than a laboratory study, it may not be accurate. The study evaluated the sensitivity and specificity of urine dipstick and microscopic urinalysis with a urine culture. METHODOLOGY: A prospective, observational study was conducted on adults who visited the Emergency Department at King Fahd Specialist Hospital in Buraydah and reported having dysuria, urine urgency, or frequency, as well as suprapubic or costovertebral angle soreness. Patients who could not give a trustworthy history, had symptoms of vaginal discharge, or had taken antibiotics within the previous 72 hours were excluded. RESULTS: One hundred fifty-three urine samples were collected and examined using urinalysis and dipstick. In addition, 113 (73.86%) of 153 urine samples exhibited no growth in urine culture. With a count of nine, Escherichia coli (E. coli) was the most often isolated organism among the positive cultures (5.88%). Klebsiella pneumoniae was the second most common in our sample with eight (5.23%). The urine dipstick was shown to have an overall sensitivity of 0.79, specificity of 0.39, positive productive value (PPV) of 0.30, and negative productive value (NPV) of 0.85. Urinalysis exhibited a high sensitivity of 0.95 and a poor specificity of 0.21. CONCLUSION: Our study showed that urine dipsticks may be more beneficial than urinalysis for ruling out urinary tract infections (UTIs), while urinalysis may be more helpful in verifying their presence.