Objective: IUrinary tract infection (UTI) is a common disease in children. Rapid and reliable diagnosis of UTI is mandatory for the prevention of complications. The aim of the present study was to assess whether or not automated urine analysis can be used as a rapid diagnostic test in comparison with ‘the gold standard' culture results in early infancy.

Materials and Methods: We conducted a retrospective cohort study between January 2013-March 2013 including all children aged <1 year, who had urinalysis and a quantitative culture as part of their diagnostic workup. Patients with culture determined to be contaminated were excluded from the study. The presence of 105 CFU/ml and above bacteria, was defined as positive urine culture. Urine analysis results (iQ 200 IRIS Diagnostics, U.S.A) were evaluated using urine culture finding as the validating standard.

Results: A total of 164 patients (5±3 months, median = 7 months) were enrolled in this study. Positive cultures were yielded in twenty-four of the patients (4±3 months, median = 4 months). Using a cutoff of >4 cell/HPF for leukocyturia (ROC EAA 0.683, %95 GA 0.568-0.798, p<0.05); we obtained a sensitivity of 37.5%; specificity of 87.1%; positive predictive value of 33.3%; negative predictive value of 89.0%; accuracy of 79.8%, negative likelihood ratio (L -) of 0.7; positive likelyhood ratio (L+) of 2.9 and post test odds of 0.49 respectively.

Conclusion: The results of automated urine analysis should not be used alone for the diagnosis of urinary tract infection in infancy. It is necessary to perform diagnostic laboratory tests and urine culture together for early and accurate diagnosis in terms of appropriate treatment.