尿液细菌培养与尿沉渣细菌定量计数筛查泌尿系统感染的临床比较分析

目的：观察尿液细菌培养与尿沉渣细菌定量计数筛查泌尿系统感染的准确率，分析尿沉渣细菌定量计数的临床价值。方法选取2011年10月～2013年10月期间我院门诊以及住院患者的尿液样本174份作为研究对象。采用尿沉渣定量分析仪和尿液细菌培养对174份尿液样本进行检测，比较两种方法的检测结果，分析尿沉渣细菌定量计数的临床检测价值。结果174例尿液样本尿液细菌培养检测结果显示，呈现阳性的有20例，阳性率为11.49%；呈现阴性的有154例，阴性率为88.51%。尿沉渣细菌定量计数筛查显示，呈现阳性的有21例，阳性率为12.07%；呈现阴性的有153例，阴性率为87.93%。两组阳性率和阴性率比较差异无统计学意义（P＞0.05）。尿沉渣细菌定量计数检测的阳性预测值为50.0%，阴性预测值为82.2%，两者比较差异具有统计学意义（P＜0.05）。结论尿沉渣细菌定量检测可以作为泌尿系统感染的检测方法，阴性预见性较高，但不能完全取代尿液细菌培养。

Clinical contrast and analysis on urine culture and urinary sediment bacteria quantitative counting and screening in urinary tract infection

Objective To observe the accuracy rate of urine culture and urinary sediment bacteria quantitative counting and screening urinary tract infection and to observe the clinical value of urinary sediment bacteria being quantitative counted. Methods 174 urine specimen from those patients who were accepted by our outpatient service and were hospitalized in our hospital during October 2011 and October 2013 were chosen as the research subject. Their urine specimen would be tested with urine sediment quantitative analyzer and urine culture. The tested results were contrasted to analyze the clinical value of detecting of sediment quantitative bacterial count. Results The detection result from 174 urine specimen showed that positive patients were 20 cases whose positive rate was 11.49%;negative patients were 154 cases whose negative rate was 88.51%. Urine sediment quantitative bacterial count screening showed that positive patients were 21 cases whose positive rate was 12.07%.Negative patients were 153 cases whose nagative rate was 87.93%. The contrastive difference of positive rate and nagative rate in two groups had no statistical significance（P 〉 0.05）. The positive predictive value tested by urinary sediment bacteria quantitative count was 50.0% and the negative predictive value was 82.2%.The contrastive difference exhibited statistical significance（P 〈0.05）. Conclusion The testing method-urinary sediment bacteria quantitative counting can be chosen as a test method of urinary tract infection. Its negative prediction is higher but it can not completely replace urine culture.