BackgroundIt is not clear which young children presenting acutely unwell to primary care should be investigated for urinary tract infection (UTI) and whether or not dipstick testing should be used to inform antibiotic treatment.ObjectivesTo develop algorithms to accurately identify pre-school children in whom urine should be obtained; assess whether or not dipstick urinalysis provides additional diagnostic information; and model algorithm cost-effectiveness.DesignMulticentre, prospective diagnostic cohort study.Setting and participantsChildren < 5 years old presenting to primary care with an acute illness and/or new urinary symptoms.MethodsOne hundred and seven clinical characteristics (index tests) were recorded from the child’s past medical history, symptoms, physical examination signs and urine dipstick test. Prior to dipstick results clinician opinion of UTI likelihood (‘clinical diagnosis’) and urine sampling and treatment intentions (‘clinical judgement’) were recorded. All index tests were measured blind to the reference standard, defined as a pure or predominant uropathogen cultured at ≥ 105colony-forming units (CFU)/ml in a single research laboratory. Urine was collected by clean catch (preferred) or nappy pad. Index tests were sequentially evaluated in two groups, stratified by urine collection method: parent-reported symptoms with clinician-reported signs, and urine dipstick results. Diagnostic accuracy was quantified using area under receiver operating characteristic curve (AUROC) with 95% confidence interval (CI) and bootstrap-validated AUROC, and compared with the ‘clinician diagnosis’ AUROC. Decision-analytic models were used to identify optimal urine sampling strategy compared with ‘clinical judgement’.ResultsA total of 7163 children were recruited, of whom 50% were female and 49% were < 2 years old. Culture results were available for 5017 (70%); 2740 children provided clean-catch samples, 94% of whom were ≥ 2 years old, with 2.2% meeting the UTI definition. Among these, ‘clinical diagnosis’ correctly identified 46.6% of positive cultures, with 94.7% specificity and an AUROC of 0.77 (95% CI 0.71 to 0.83). Four symptoms, three signs and three dipstick results were independently associated with UTI with an AUROC (95% CI; bootstrap-validated AUROC) of 0.89 (0.85 to 0.95; validated 0.88) for symptoms and signs, increasing to 0.93 (0.90 to 0.97; validated 0.90) with dipstick results. Nappy pad samples were provided from the other 2277 children, of whom 82% were < 2 years old and 1.3% met the UTI definition. ‘Clinical diagnosis’ correctly identified 13.3% positive cultures, with 98.5% specificity and an AUROC of 0.63 (95% CI 0.53 to 0.72). Four symptoms and two dipstick results were independently associated with UTI, with an AUROC of 0.81 (0.72 to 0.90; validated 0.78) for symptoms, increasing to 0.87 (0.80 to 0.94; validated 0.82) with the dipstick findings. A high specificity threshold for the clean-catch model was more accurate and less costly than, and as effective as, clinical judgement. The additional diagnostic utility of dipstick testing was offset by its costs. The cost-effectiveness of the nappy pad model was not clear-cut.ConclusionsClinicians should prioritise the use of clean-catch sampling as symptoms and signs can cost-effectively improve the identification of UTI in young children where clean catch is possible. Dipstick testing can improve targeting of antibiotic treatment, but at a higher cost than waiting for a laboratory result. Future research is needed to distinguish pathogens from contaminants, assess the impact of the clean-catch algorithm on patient outcomes, and the cost-effectiveness of presumptive versus dipstick versus laboratory-guided antibiotic treatment.FundingThe National Institute for Health Research Health Technology Assessment programme.

No abstract

No abstract

Steroids alone or combined with an antibiotic lead to a quicker resolution of OME in the short-term. However, there is no evidence for a long-term benefit from treating hearing loss associated with OME with either oral or topical nasal steroids. These treatments are, therefore, not recommended.

PURPOSE Up to 50% of urinary tract infections (UTIs) in young children are missed in primary care. Urine culture is essential for diagnosis, but urine collection is often difficult. Our aim was to derive and internally validate a 2-step clinical rule using (1) symptoms and signs to select children for urine collection; and (2) symptoms, signs, and dipstick testing to guide antibiotic treatment. METHODSWe recruited acutely unwell children aged under 5 years from 233 primary care sites across England and Wales. Index tests were parent-reported symptoms, clinician-reported signs, urine dipstick results, and clinician opinion of UTI likelihood (clinical diagnosis before dipstick and culture). The reference standard was microbiologically confirmed UTI cultured from a clean-catch urine sample. We calculated sensitivity, specificity, and area under the receiver operator characteristic (AUROC) curve of coefficient-based (graded severity) and pointsbased (dichotomized) symptom/sign logistic regression models, and we then internally validated the AUROC using bootstrapping.RESULTS Three thousand thirty-six children provided urine samples, and culture results were available for 2,740 (90%). Of these results, 60 (2.2%) were positive: the clinical diagnosis was 46.6% sensitive, with an AUROC of 0.77. Previous UTI, increasing pain/crying on passing urine, increasingly smelly urine, absence of severe cough, increasing clinician impression of severe illness, abdominal tenderness on examination, and normal findings on ear examination were associated with UTI. The validated coefficient-and points-based model AUROCs were 0.87 and 0.86, respectively, increasing to 0.90 and 0.90, respectively, by adding dipstick nitrites, leukocytes, and blood.CONCLUSIONS A clinical rule based on symptoms and signs is superior to clinician diagnosis and performs well for identifying young children for noninvasive urine sampling. Dipstick results add further diagnostic value for empiric antibiotic treatment. Ann Fam Med 2016;14:325-336. doi: 10.1370/afm.1954. INTRODUCTIONT he accurate and timely diagnosis of urinary tract infection (UTI) in children is important to alleviate short-term suffering 1 and prevent the possible long-term consequences, such as renal scarring, impaired renal growth, recurrent pyelonephritis, impaired glomerular function, hypertension, end-stage renal disease, and preeclampsia. [2][3][4] Guidelines universally recommend microbiological confirmation using urine samples collected by clean catch (preferred in Europe), 5 catheterization, or suprapubic aspiration for unwell children where clean catch is not immediately available (preferred in the United States 6 and Australia 7 ). There are 3 possible explanations why one-half of UTIs are not diagnosed at the earliest opportunity in UK primary care. 8 First, relevant evidence in primary care regarding which children should be suspected of having a UTI is scarce. Guidelines, which emphasize the importance 326of fever, 6,7,9 are largely informed by studies conducted in emerg...