Search Results

You are looking at 1 - 1 of 1 items for

  • Author or Editor: Yenlie Wang x
  • Refine by Access: All Content x
Clear All Modify Search


Objective—To evaluate the performance of a veterinary urine dipstick paddle (UDP) for diagnosis and identification of urinary tract infection (UTI) in dogs and cats.

Design—Prospective, randomized, blinded study.

Sample—207 urine specimens.

Procedures—UDPs were inoculated by 2 investigators and incubated according to manufacturer's instructions. Results, including presence or absence of bacterial growth, organism counts, and identification of uropathogens, were compared between investigators and with microbiology laboratory results. A subset of UDPs with bacterial growth was submitted to the laboratory for confirmation.

Results—The laboratory reported 64 (30.9%) specimens had growth of bacteria. Bacterial growth was reported for 63 (30.4%) and 58 (28.0%) of the UDPs by investigators 1 and 2, respectively. Sensitivity and specificity of the UDP for detection of bacterial growth were 97.3% and 98.6%, respectively, for investigator 1 and 89.1% and 99.3%, respectively, for investigator 2. For UPDs with ≥ 105 colony-forming units/mL, organism counts correlated well between the laboratory and investigators 1 (r = 0.95) and 2 (r = 0.89). Pathogen identification was not always accurate. Only 25 of 33 (75.8%) UDPs submitted for confirmation yielded bacteria consistent with those isolated from the original bacterial culture of urine.

Conclusions and Clinical Relevance—The veterinary UDP system was a sensitive test for screening patients for bacterial UTI, but uropathogen identification was not always accurate. When UDPs have bacterial growth, a fresh urine specimen should be submitted to the laboratory to confirm the identity of the organisms and to permit antimicrobial susceptibility testing.

Restricted access
in Journal of the American Veterinary Medical Association