Pollock H M
Am J Med. 1983 Jul 28;75(1B):79-84. doi: 10.1016/0002-9343(83)90076-1.
Manual methods for diagnosing urinary tract infection have long been under review, modification, and evaluation; thus, methods of collection and interpretation have been found to require more scrutiny. Various screening procedures include chemical, microscopic, and cultural methods, the latter two being highly reliable. In addition, examples of infections due to anaerobic bacteria and Mycoplasma have been documented, with the accompanying need to consider their role in particular situations. There has also been a need for localizing the infection, which has been accomplished with some useful methods. From the literature it is apparent that the tests all have a portion of patients' results that do not fit the true picture. These must be considered carefully in light of other information.
长期以来,用于诊断尿路感染的手工方法一直在接受审查、修改和评估;因此,已发现采集和解读方法需要更严格的审查。各种筛查程序包括化学、显微镜和培养方法,后两种方法高度可靠。此外,已经记录了由厌氧菌和支原体引起的感染病例,同时需要考虑它们在特定情况下的作用。还需要对感染进行定位,这已通过一些有用的方法得以实现。从文献中可以明显看出,所有这些检测都有一部分患者的结果与实际情况不符。必须根据其他信息仔细考虑这些情况。