Peer-reviewed veterinary case report
Catalase urine test for detecting UTI in dogs and cats
By Kvitko-White, H L et al.·Published in Journal of veterinary internal medicine·2013·Department of Small Animal Clinical Sciences, United States·View original on PubMed →
PetCaseFinder translated the abstract of this peer-reviewed paper into plain English so pet owners can read it. We do not publish original research — every detail traces back to the citation above. How we work →
Original publication title: Evaluation of a catalase-based urine test for the detection of urinary tract infection in dogs and cats.
Plain-English summary
A study involving 160 dogs and cats found that a new urine test called Uriscreen is better at detecting urinary tract infections (UTIs) than the traditional method of looking at urine under a microscope. While the Uriscreen test was able to identify 89% of infections, the microscopic examination was more specific, meaning it was better at confirming when there wasn't an infection. However, both tests still require a follow-up urine culture to confirm the presence of a UTI. This means that if your pet has symptoms of a UTI, like frequent urination or straining to urinate, a vet may use the Uriscreen test to help diagnose the issue.
People also search for: dog urinary tract infection symptoms · cat UTI treatment · Uriscreen test for pets · how to treat dog UTI · cat frequent urination causes
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Bacterial infection of the urinary tract is a common disorder in dogs and cats. Although microscopic examination of urine sediment is routinely used to screen for infection, this test can lack sensitivity or require expertise. A reliable in-clinic screening test would be a useful adjunct for the identification of dogs and cats with bacterial urinary tract infection (UTI). HYPOTHESIS: That a catalase-based urine test (Accutest Uriscreen™) is a more sensitive screening test for UTI in dogs and cats than urine microscopic sediment examination. ANIMALS: One hundred and sixty client-owned dogs and cats. METHODS: Surplus urine from animals presented to a veterinary teaching hospital was used in this prospective observational study. A routine urinalysis, aerobic bacterial culture, and the Uriscreen test were performed on cystocentesis samples. Sensitivity and specificity with 95% confidence intervals and positive and negative likelihood ratios were calculated for Uriscreen and microscopic sediment examination using culture results as the gold standard. RESULTS: Bacterial culture was positive in 27/165 (16.4%) samples. The sensitivity, specificity, and positive and negative likelihood ratios for the Uriscreen were 89%, 71%, 3.0, and 0.15, respectively. Sensitivity, specificity, and positive and negative likelihood ratios for urine sediment microscopic examination were 78%, 90%, 7.8, and 0.24, respectively. CONCLUSIONS AND CLINICAL IMPORTANCE: The Uriscreen is a more sensitive screening test for UTI in dogs and cats than sediment examination; however, the urine sediment examination was more specific. A negative Uriscreen result helps exclude UTI; however, urine bacterial culture is still necessary to exclude or confirm UTI in all cases.
Find similar cases for your pet
PetCaseFinder finds other peer-reviewed reports of pets with the same symptoms, plus a plain-English summary of what was tried across them.
Search related cases →Original publication on PubMed: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/24112434/