This Article  • References  • Full text PDF  • Send to a friend  • Save in My Folder  • Save to citation manager  • Permissions  Citing Articles  • Contact me when this article is cited  Related Content  • Similar articles in JAMA  Social Bookmarking   What's this?

David M. Wilson, MD
Mayo Clinic Rochester, Minn

JAMA. 1994;271(18):1399.

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

To the Editor.

—I read with some concern the study by Bachman et al¹ concerning the various tests for detecting AUTIs in an obstetric population.

There are two issues addressed by the authors. The first relates to the question of the best method for detecting an AUTI. The other relates to the cost of screening procedures. Unfortunately, the authors have made conclusions concerning both questions that are unwarranted and misleading. The authors concluded that detection of AUTI with dipsticks is a satisfactory or low-cost way to handle the problem of AUTIs.

There is no doubt that detection of AUTIs during pregnancy is necessary, and treatment prevents pyelonephritis in 60% to 80% of those women and prevents premature delivery of infants with their complications and costs.

The authors impugn urinalysis as too insensitive for detecting AUTI, although they have selected against sensitivity by arbitrarily choosing more than 10 or more . . . [Full Text PDF of this Article]

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