Related Experiment Video
Updated: Feb 15, 2026
An In Vitro Bladder Model of Catheter-Associated Urinary Tract Infection
Published on: June 24, 2025
Evaluation of a rapid screening filter test for urinary tract infection in children
1Division of Emergency Medicine, Children's Hospital of Philadelphia, PA 19104, USA. shaw@email.chop.edu
Insights
FiltraCheck-UTI is a costly screening test for pediatric urinary tract infections (UTIs) with more false positives than urine dipsticks. Urine dipsticks are a better inexpensive option but may not be adequate for young children.
Area of Science:
- Pediatric Emergency Medicine
- Clinical Microbiology
- Diagnostic Test Evaluation
Background:
- Urinary tract infections (UTIs) are common in children, necessitating accurate and cost-effective diagnostic methods.
- Rapid screening tests aim to improve the efficiency of UTI diagnosis in pediatric settings.
Purpose of the Study:
- To clinically evaluate the performance and cost-effectiveness of the FiltraCheck-UTI rapid screening filter test.
- To compare FiltraCheck-UTI against urine dipstick and conventional urinalysis for UTI detection in children.
Main Methods:
- A cross-sectional concordance study involving 1298 children (2 days to 19 years) requiring urine culture.
- Screening tests (FiltraCheck-UTI, urine dipstick) performed by laboratory personnel.
- Cost per case detected and retrospective chart review for clinical data.
Main Results:
- UTI prevalence was 7.1%. FiltraCheck-UTI showed 85% sensitivity and 72% specificity for bacteriuria, comparable to microscopy but struggled with Gram-positive organisms.
- The urine dipstick demonstrated the highest specificity and was the most cost-effective rapid test.
- FiltraCheck-UTI's performance varied based on UTI definition, and it was noted to be more expensive with higher false positive rates than the dipstick.
Conclusions:
- FiltraCheck-UTI is a less cost-effective option than the urine dipstick for pediatric UTI screening due to higher costs and false positives.
- While urine dipsticks are a good inexpensive alternative, they may not be sufficient for deciding on urine cultures in very young children.
- Further refinement of rapid UTI screening methods is needed for optimal pediatric care.
Objective:
Clinical evaluation of a rapid screening filter test for urinary tract infection (UTI), FiltraCheck-UTI, comparison to the urine dipstick and conventional urinalysis for test performance and cost effectiveness in children.
Setting:
Pediatric emergency department at an urban children's hospital.
Methods:
Cross-sectional concordance study of 1298 children age 2 days to 19 years (50% < or = 2 years) for whom a urine culture was ordered; screening tests run by trained laboratory personnel; cost per case detected calculated; retrospective chart review for clinical information.
Results:
Prevalence of UTI was 7.1%. Urine obtained from children < or = 2 years by catheter (97%) as part of an evaluation of fever or sepsis (82%). FiltraCheck-UTI was comparable with microscopy for bacteriuria (P = 0.11), sensitivity of 85% (95% confidence interval, 76 to 91) and specificity of 72% (95% confidence interval, 70 to 75%) but it was difficult detect Gram-positive organisms by this method (P < 0.001). Its performance varied by definition of UTI. The urine dipstick had the best specificity and was the most cost-effective rapid test.
Conclusions:
FiltraCheck-UTI is more expensive and has more false positives than the urine dipstick in detecting UTI in children. The dipstick continues to be the best inexpensive alternative to microscopy, but it is probably not an adequate screen for when to send a urine culture in young children.
Related Concept Videos
01:28Urinary Tract Calculi V: Nursing Management
01:28Urinary Tract Calculi I: Introduction
01:17Urinary Tract Infection IV: Nursing Management
01:30Urinary Tract Infection III: Diagnostic Studies and Interprofessional Care
01:25Urinary Tract Infection II: Pathophysiology
01:26Urinary Tract Infection I: Introduction