Table 1. Diagnostic testing with dip sticks.

Source	Bacterial count cfu/mL	Prevalence	n	Test	Sens %	Spec %	PPV %	NPV %	LR +	LR –	Comments
McIsaac (15)	>102	63%	331	Ni	36	89	85	45	3.4	0.7	10% with discharge
				Le	84	45	72	63	1.5	0.35
Grude 2005 (e11)	>104	76%	184	Le	94	9	86	20	1.0	0.6
				Ni	57	78	94	23	2.6	0.5
Winkens (24)	> 105	62 %	268	Ni	42	95	93	50	8.4	0.6	17% men
Verest 2000 (e12)	> 105	58 %	292	Le	88	37	63	71	1.4	0.3
				Ni	53	95	93	59	10.6	0.5
				Ni +Le neg				81
Deville (e13)	k.A		k.A	Ni	53	88			4.4		Metaanalysis of subgroup “General Practice”, no differentiation by sex
				Le	87	36			1.3
				Ni + Le pos	90	65			2.5
Heckerling 2007 (e9)	>105	26 %	212	Ni					1.5		With diagnostic definition of >102 bacteria, prevalence rises to 55%
				Le					1.5
Semeniuk 1999 (e14)	> 104	19 %	479	Ni	43	97	75	88	14		Inclusion criteria unclear
				Le	84	59	19	97	2
				Ni + Le pos	84	98	84	98	42
Little (8)	> 103	62.5 %	427	Blut	93	34	70	73	1.4	0.22	Presence of vaginal discharge led to exclusion
				Le	89	52	75	72	2.58	0.33
				Ni + Le pos	26	97	93	44	8.0	0.77
Hummers-Pradier (20)	> 102	77 %	445	Ni	39	88	92	29	3.3	0.7	Complicated UTI excluded
				Le	72	46	83	31	1.3	0.6
				Ni +Le pos	35	88	91	27	2.9	0.7

Overview of studies for the diagnosis of a urinary tract infection; inclusion criteria: primary care setting; reason for consultation: women with symptoms when passing water; comparison with urine culture as gold standard; sens, sensitivity; spec, specificity; PPV, positive predictive value; NPV, negative predictive value; LR, likelihood ratio; Le, leukocyte esterase; Ni, nitrite. Missing values are either not given in the sources or cannot be calculated from the available data.