This Article  • Full text  • PDF  • Send to a friend  • Save in My Folder  • Save to citation manager  • Permissions  Citing Articles  • Citing articles on ISI (2)  • Contact me when this article is cited  Related Content  • Related article  • Similar articles in JAMA

	Since this article does not have an abstract, we have provided the first 150 words of the full text and any section headings.

To the Editor: In their Rational Clinical Examination article, Dr Bent and colleagues¹ evaluated the accuracy and precision of the clinical history and examination for the diagnosis of urinary tract infection (UTI). Clinicians often rely on a single symptom or sign to establish the diagnosis,² so it is important that they be aware of the pretest probability. However, the pretest probability of infection that Bent et al cite (48%) seems very high to us. One of us (T.F.) has calculated a 25% to 29% pretest probability of UTI in patients attending 8 primary care practices in the United Kingdom.² We are also aware of another study that found a pretest probability of 35%.³ We therefore reexamined the studies that Bent et al used, added the study by Dobbs and Fleming,³ and performed a meta-analysis on only those articles that exclusively studied women with symptoms suggestive of UTI.^4-6 We excluded studies . . . [Full Text of this Article]

RELATED ARTICLE

Does This Woman Have an Acute Uncomplicated Urinary Tract Infection?
Stephen Bent, Brahmajee K. Nallamothu, David L. Simel, Stephan D. Fihn, and Sanjay Saint
JAMA. 2002;287(20):2701-2710.
ABSTRACT | FULL TEXT