Random urine specimens (848) were screened for significant @entity793 by using the 30-min Lumac (3M, St. Paul, Minn.), the 2-min Bac-T-Screen (Marion Laboratories, Inc., Kansas City, Mo.), and the 13-h @entity262 ( @entity262 ) urine identification card (Vitek Systems, Inc., Hazelwood, Mo.). MacConkey and 5% @entity742 blood agar plates were inoculated with a 10(-4) dilution of urine and used for the reference method. Bac-T-Screen results were uninterpretable for 9.1% of the specimens owing to either urine sample pigmentation (5.3%) or clogging of the filter (3.8%). Screen-negative urine specimens made up 49.6, 57.2, and 48.5% of the total number of specimens evaluated with @entity262 , Lumac, and Bac-T-Screen, respectively. False-positive results with Lumac and Bac-T-Screen were 20.6 and 22.3%, respectively. False-negative results for cultures with greater than or equal to 10(4) CFU/ml were 22.0% with @entity262 , 29.4% with Lumac, and 25.5% with Bac-T-Screen, and false-negative results for cultures with greater than or equal to 10(5) CFU/ml were 29.6% with @entity262 , 9.9% with Lumac, and 7.0% with Bac-T-Screen. For each system, greater than 70% of false-negatives at greater than or equal to 10(5) CFU/ml consisted of mixed or pure cultures of common contaminants. With any of these screening methods, a clinically significant isolate at greater than or equal to 10(5) CFU/ml would rarely be missed (less than or equal to 1.7% for all systems). A cost-effective and rapid approach to urine microbiology could consist of screening out negative specimens by either Lumac or Bac-T-Screen and processing only screen-positive specimens by the @entity262 .

Clinical evaluation of three rapid methods for the detection of significant XXXX .

@entity262 :: ('MESH:D034721', 'Disease') :: ['AMS', 'AutoMicrobic system'] @entity742 :: ('9940', 'Species') :: ['sheep'] @entity793 :: ('MESH:D001437', 'Disease') :: ['bacteriuria']
@entity793 :: (MESH:D001437,Disease) :: ['bacteriuria']
