You are here

Responses

Article menu
Download PDFPDF
Viewpoint
Diagnosing urinary tract infection in children: time to ditch the pad?
Compose a Response to This Article
Compose Response

More information about text formats

Plain text

  • No HTML tags allowed.
  • Web page addresses and e-mail addresses turn into links automatically.
  • Lines and paragraphs break automatically.
Author Information
First or given name, e.g. 'Peter'.
Your last, or family, name, e.g. 'MacMoody'.
Your email address, e.g. higgs-boson@gmail.com
Your role and/or occupation, e.g. 'Orthopedic Surgeon'.
Your organization or institution (if applicable), e.g. 'Royal Free Hospital'.
Statement of Competing Interests

PLEASE NOTE:

  • A rapid response is a moderated but not peer reviewed online response to a published article in a BMJ journal; it will not receive a DOI and will not be indexed unless it is also republished as a Letter, Correspondence or as other content. Find out more about rapid responses.
  • We intend to post all responses which are approved by the Editor, within 14 days (BMJ Journals) or 24 hours (The BMJ), however timeframes cannot be guaranteed. Responses must comply with our requirements and should contribute substantially to the topic, but it is at our absolute discretion whether we publish a response, and we reserve the right to edit or remove responses before and after publication and also republish some or all in other BMJ publications, including third party local editions in other countries and languages
  • Our requirements are stated in our rapid response terms and conditions and must be read. These include ensuring that: i) you do not include any illustrative content including tables and graphs, ii) you do not include any information that includes specifics about any patients,iii) you do not include any original data, unless it has already been published in a peer reviewed journal and you have included a reference, iv) your response is lawful, not defamatory, original and accurate, v) you declare any competing interests, vi) you understand that your name and other personal details set out in our rapid response terms and conditions will be published with any responses we publish and vii) you understand that once a response is published, we may continue to publish your response and/or edit or remove it in the future.
  • By submitting this rapid response you are agreeing to our terms and conditions for rapid responses and understand that your personal data will be processed in accordance with those terms and our privacy notice.
CAPTCHA
This question is for testing whether or not you are a human visitor and to prevent automated spam submissions.

Vertical Tabs

Other responses

Jump to comment:

  • Published on: 15 February 2022
    It's not time to ditch the pad: pads have a place
    • Mervyn S Jaswon, Hon' Consultant Paediatrician Department of Paediatrics, Whittington Hospital, London
    • Other Contributors:
      • James Diviney, Paediatric Intensive Care Registrar

    26th January 2022

    To the Editor

    Archives of Disease in Childhood

    re Diagnosing urinary tract infection in children: time to ditch the pad?

    Harkensee C, Clennett J, Wilkinson S, et al

    Arch Dis Child 2021; 106: 935-936

    We read with interest the article by Harkensee et al, (1) suggesting that the urinary collection pad (UCP) no longer had a role in obtaining samples for diagnosis of urinary tract infections (UTI). Whilst it is well established that there is an unacceptably high rate of contamination with UCPs making them unsuitable for microbiological culture, and that the preferred (non-invasive) method for obtaining a sample for culture is by 'clean catch' +/- stimulation or Quick-Wee method, we would suggest that the UCP has a role in screening for UTI, by dipstick analysis of the aspirated pad sample for leucocyte esterase (LE) and nitrites (2). It would be useful, in a paediatric 'acute referral clinic' or Emergency Department, in infants or children, with non-specific abdominal pain, or fever without a focus, where a combination of a negative test for both LE and nitrites can be reasonably used to exclude UTI, and equally a positive LE and nitrite result would indicate a high likelihood of a UTI and the need to obtain a 'clean catch' or catheter specimen for microbiological analysis (3). The advantages of the UCP are that it allows 'point of care' dipstick analysis with inf...

    Show More
    Conflict of Interest:
    None declared.