You are seeing this message because your Web browser does not support basic Web standards. Find out more about why this message is appearing and what you can do to make your experience on this site better.


ABOUT JAMA
Advanced Search

Welcome   | My Account | E-mail Alerts | Access Rights | Sign In


  Vol. 253 No. 11, March 15, 1985 TABLE OF CONTENTS
  JAMA
  •  Online Features
  TOWARD OPTIMAL LABORATORY USE
 This Article
 •References
 •Full text PDF
 •Send to a friend
 • Save in My Folder
 •Save to citation manager
 •Permissions
 Citing Articles
 •Citation map
 •Citing articles on HighWire
 •Citing articles on Web of Science (60)
 •Contact me when this article is cited
 Related Content
 •Similar articles in JAMA
 Social Bookmarking
  Add to CiteULike Add to Connotea Add to Del.icio.us Add to Digg Add to Reddit Add to Technorati Add to Twitter What's this?

'Routine Urinalysis'

Is the Dipstick Enough?

Seth T. Shaw, Jr, MD; Selina Y. Poon; Edward T. Wong, MD

JAMA. 1985;253(11):1596-1600.


Abstract

Results of this study indicated that a protein-negative, blood-negative dipstick result may be used to rule out the necessity for performing a microscopic examination in "routine urinalysis" only if one is willing to accept 13% false-negative results. On the other hand, a protein-, blood-, and leukocyte esterase-negative dipstick result was associated with 1.4% to 3.3% false-negative results. The high sensitivity of the leukocyte esterase— measuring dipstick for microscopically abnormal urine samples was dependent on its ability to detect small numbers of leukocytes only when interpreted five minutes after immersing it in the sample. Various approaches may be used by which these findings could be applied to produce cost savings and also protect the small number of patients who may have dipstick-negative, microscopically positive urine.

(JAMA 1985;253:1596-1600)



Author Affiliations

From the Department of Pathology, University of Southern California School of Medicine and Los Angeles County-University of Southern California Medical Center, Los Angeles. Dr Shaw is now with the University of Chicago Hospitals and Clinics.


Footnotes

Reprint requests to Box 404, University of Chicago Hospitals and Clinics, 5841 S Maryland Ave, Chicago, IL 60637 (Dr Shaw).



Add to CiteULike CiteULike   Add to Connotea Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us Del.icio.us   Add to Digg Digg   Add to Reddit Reddit   Add to Technorati Technorati   Add to Twitter Twitter     What's this?

THIS ARTICLE HAS BEEN CITED BY OTHER ARTICLES

Screening for Proteinuria in US Adults: A Cost-effectiveness Analysis
Boulware et al.
JAMA 2003;290:3101-3114.
ABSTRACT | FULL TEXT  

Automated Flow Cytometry Compared with an Automated Dipstick Reader for Urinalysis
Langlois et al.
Clin. Chem. 1999;45:118-122.
ABSTRACT | FULL TEXT  

Use of Methodological Standards in Diagnostic Test Research: Getting Better but Still Not Good
Reid et al.
JAMA 1995;274:645-651.
ABSTRACT  

Dipstick Urinalysis Screening of Asymptomatic Adults for Urinary Tract Disorders: I. Hematuria and Proteinuria
Woolhandler et al.
JAMA 1989;262:1214-1219.
ABSTRACT  

Interference by Phenazopyridine With the Leukocyte Esterase Dipstick
Kerr et al.
JAMA 1986;256:38-39.
ABSTRACT  

Routine Urinalysis: Is the Dipstick Enough?
Campbell
JAMA 1985;254:1723-1723.
ABSTRACT  

Routine Urinalysis: Is the Dipstick Enough?
Fung and Lo
JAMA 1985;254:1723-1723.
ABSTRACT  





HOME | CURRENT ISSUE | PAST ISSUES | TOPIC COLLECTIONS | CME | SUBMIT | SUBSCRIBE | HELP
CONDITIONS OF USE | PRIVACY POLICY | CONTACT US | SITE MAP
 
© 1985 American Medical Association. All Rights Reserved.