Routine urinalysis of patients in hospital in Lebanon

How worthwhile is it?

N. Pashayan, M. Khogali, Stella Major

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

2 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

Objectives: To examine the impact of routine urinalysis at admission on inpatient care at a hospital in Lebanon, where physicians perceive it to be a valuable diagnostic tool, in a country where preventive services are underdeveloped and where the epidemiology of kidney diseases possibly differs from that of the western world. Setting: American University Hospital, a tertiary teaching hospital in Beirut, Lebanon. Methods: A retrospective medical record review of all adult patients admitted over 2 weeks to the medicine and surgery wards of the American University Hospital. Outcomes measured were frequency of routine urinalysis versus urinalysis for a clinical indication, investigation of abnormal test results, and implications of test results on clinical management. Results: 367 (79%) of 462 study patients underwent urinalysis. 266 (73%) patients had routine urinalysis. Abnormal results were found in 97(37%) routine tests and 67 (66%) of those clinically indicated urinalysis (p<0.001). Abnormalities were investigated in 21 (22%) of the abnormal routine urinalyses and 45 (67%) of the abnormal clinically indicated urinalyses (p<0.001). Logistic regression analysis showed no factors to correlate positively with investigation of abnormal urinalysis. Treatment was given to two (1%) patients who had had routine urinalysis and 26 (26%) of all those tested because of a clinical indication (p<0.001). Conclusions: Clinical response to any abnormal urinalysis is more likely when a urine test is done for a clinical indication. In this study setting, impact of routine admission urinalysis on patient care was negligible. Despite physicians' perception of routine urinalysis being a valuable case finding tool, in this study its true value remains questionable.

Original languageEnglish
Pages (from-to)181-186
Number of pages6
JournalJournal of Medical Screening
Volume9
Issue number4
DOIs
Publication statusPublished - 2002
Externally publishedYes

Fingerprint

Lebanon
Urinalysis
Physicians
Western World
Kidney Diseases
Tertiary Care Centers
Teaching Hospitals
Medical Records

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Health Policy
  • Public Health, Environmental and Occupational Health

Cite this

Routine urinalysis of patients in hospital in Lebanon : How worthwhile is it? / Pashayan, N.; Khogali, M.; Major, Stella.

In: Journal of Medical Screening, Vol. 9, No. 4, 2002, p. 181-186.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

@article{177c8874ac0b437499e8bbcd1393ec53,
title = "Routine urinalysis of patients in hospital in Lebanon: How worthwhile is it?",
abstract = "Objectives: To examine the impact of routine urinalysis at admission on inpatient care at a hospital in Lebanon, where physicians perceive it to be a valuable diagnostic tool, in a country where preventive services are underdeveloped and where the epidemiology of kidney diseases possibly differs from that of the western world. Setting: American University Hospital, a tertiary teaching hospital in Beirut, Lebanon. Methods: A retrospective medical record review of all adult patients admitted over 2 weeks to the medicine and surgery wards of the American University Hospital. Outcomes measured were frequency of routine urinalysis versus urinalysis for a clinical indication, investigation of abnormal test results, and implications of test results on clinical management. Results: 367 (79{\%}) of 462 study patients underwent urinalysis. 266 (73{\%}) patients had routine urinalysis. Abnormal results were found in 97(37{\%}) routine tests and 67 (66{\%}) of those clinically indicated urinalysis (p<0.001). Abnormalities were investigated in 21 (22{\%}) of the abnormal routine urinalyses and 45 (67{\%}) of the abnormal clinically indicated urinalyses (p<0.001). Logistic regression analysis showed no factors to correlate positively with investigation of abnormal urinalysis. Treatment was given to two (1{\%}) patients who had had routine urinalysis and 26 (26{\%}) of all those tested because of a clinical indication (p<0.001). Conclusions: Clinical response to any abnormal urinalysis is more likely when a urine test is done for a clinical indication. In this study setting, impact of routine admission urinalysis on patient care was negligible. Despite physicians' perception of routine urinalysis being a valuable case finding tool, in this study its true value remains questionable.",
author = "N. Pashayan and M. Khogali and Stella Major",
year = "2002",
doi = "10.1136/jms.9.4.181",
language = "English",
volume = "9",
pages = "181--186",
journal = "Journal of Medical Screening",
issn = "0969-1413",
publisher = "SAGE Publications Ltd",
number = "4",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Routine urinalysis of patients in hospital in Lebanon

T2 - How worthwhile is it?

AU - Pashayan, N.

AU - Khogali, M.

AU - Major, Stella

PY - 2002

Y1 - 2002

N2 - Objectives: To examine the impact of routine urinalysis at admission on inpatient care at a hospital in Lebanon, where physicians perceive it to be a valuable diagnostic tool, in a country where preventive services are underdeveloped and where the epidemiology of kidney diseases possibly differs from that of the western world. Setting: American University Hospital, a tertiary teaching hospital in Beirut, Lebanon. Methods: A retrospective medical record review of all adult patients admitted over 2 weeks to the medicine and surgery wards of the American University Hospital. Outcomes measured were frequency of routine urinalysis versus urinalysis for a clinical indication, investigation of abnormal test results, and implications of test results on clinical management. Results: 367 (79%) of 462 study patients underwent urinalysis. 266 (73%) patients had routine urinalysis. Abnormal results were found in 97(37%) routine tests and 67 (66%) of those clinically indicated urinalysis (p<0.001). Abnormalities were investigated in 21 (22%) of the abnormal routine urinalyses and 45 (67%) of the abnormal clinically indicated urinalyses (p<0.001). Logistic regression analysis showed no factors to correlate positively with investigation of abnormal urinalysis. Treatment was given to two (1%) patients who had had routine urinalysis and 26 (26%) of all those tested because of a clinical indication (p<0.001). Conclusions: Clinical response to any abnormal urinalysis is more likely when a urine test is done for a clinical indication. In this study setting, impact of routine admission urinalysis on patient care was negligible. Despite physicians' perception of routine urinalysis being a valuable case finding tool, in this study its true value remains questionable.

AB - Objectives: To examine the impact of routine urinalysis at admission on inpatient care at a hospital in Lebanon, where physicians perceive it to be a valuable diagnostic tool, in a country where preventive services are underdeveloped and where the epidemiology of kidney diseases possibly differs from that of the western world. Setting: American University Hospital, a tertiary teaching hospital in Beirut, Lebanon. Methods: A retrospective medical record review of all adult patients admitted over 2 weeks to the medicine and surgery wards of the American University Hospital. Outcomes measured were frequency of routine urinalysis versus urinalysis for a clinical indication, investigation of abnormal test results, and implications of test results on clinical management. Results: 367 (79%) of 462 study patients underwent urinalysis. 266 (73%) patients had routine urinalysis. Abnormal results were found in 97(37%) routine tests and 67 (66%) of those clinically indicated urinalysis (p<0.001). Abnormalities were investigated in 21 (22%) of the abnormal routine urinalyses and 45 (67%) of the abnormal clinically indicated urinalyses (p<0.001). Logistic regression analysis showed no factors to correlate positively with investigation of abnormal urinalysis. Treatment was given to two (1%) patients who had had routine urinalysis and 26 (26%) of all those tested because of a clinical indication (p<0.001). Conclusions: Clinical response to any abnormal urinalysis is more likely when a urine test is done for a clinical indication. In this study setting, impact of routine admission urinalysis on patient care was negligible. Despite physicians' perception of routine urinalysis being a valuable case finding tool, in this study its true value remains questionable.

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=12244268631&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=12244268631&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1136/jms.9.4.181

DO - 10.1136/jms.9.4.181

M3 - Article

VL - 9

SP - 181

EP - 186

JO - Journal of Medical Screening

JF - Journal of Medical Screening

SN - 0969-1413

IS - 4

ER -