Efficacy of the Routine Admission Urinalysis

Routine preoperative testing: a systematic review of the evidence.

“…31,32,35,37,45,46,60,78,[105][106][107] All were simple case-series. Seven studies were in adults 37,45,46,60,[105][106][107] three were in children, 31,32,78 and in one study the age of the study population was not specified. 35 Two of the studies included here fall, strictly, outside the terms of our search strategy, since they were conducted on medical admissions rather than for preoperative assessment.…”

Routine urinalysis of patients in hospital in Lebanon: how worthwhile is it?

“…For instance, the investigation of Akin et al on the efficacy of routine admission urinalysis in 123 patients admitted to medical wards showed that of the 34% of urinalyses which were abnormal, only 2.4% received treatment. 2 A systematic review by Munro et al which looked at the value of routine preoperative urine testing showed that of 6740 urinalyses, up to 39.2% were found to be abnormal, but only between 0.1% and 16.6% of patients received new treatment. 1 Some reasons to account for the low investigation rate of abnormal routine urinalysis among physicians might includethe physicians' perception of the abnormality as being clinically unimportant, the inadequacy of documentation, the patient being discharged before all the results were available, or simply because the abnormalities were not noticed.…”

“…This classification table was compiled from the scientific literature. 2 The list was modified such that all criteria were directly related to the reason for hospital admission. The questionnaire was constructed so that the data collector started by assessing whether the patients' admission symptoms and signs and diagnosis were related to the urinary tract.…”

“…According to western literature, dipstick and microscopic urinalyses have not been shown to be effective diagnostic tests for renal disease on general admission to hospital [2][3][4] or preoperatively. 2 3 In Lebanon, health services are not nationalised, and patients initiate contact with physicians.…”

The Predictive Value of Microscopic Haematuria in Patients with Lower Urinary Tract Symptoms and Benign Prostatic Hyperplasia

“…Although urinalysis has become accepted as an essen tial part of clinical assessment, there is evidence that uri nalysis is not a good screening procedure because of the low predictive value. Though abnormalities are found in approximately a third of the tests, the therapeutic yield is very small, leading to change of treatment in only 1-2% of the patients [3,4]. On the other hand, erythrocyturia is an alarming finding, and it is reported that 4.8-16.5% of adults with asymptomatic microerythrocyturia have seri ous urologie diseases [5][6][7], Until now, however, no paper has been published on the finding of erythrocyturia in…”