Abstract
I read with great interest the critical review article on diagnosing urinary tract infections (UTI), which was based on publications. It showed beautifully the dilemma posed by the diagnostic evaluation of UTI. Even in publications this is not optimal. Too often, the sole focus is on laboratory findings (pathogen numbers that are regarded as the gold standard for UTI) or test strips. The clinical picture with findings from the vulva and the urethral area, and microscopic urinalysis are often neglected. I can understand that subjective findings count less because clinical aspects are often ignored during medical training and their implication, especially in studies, is usually less accepted. Unfortunately, this often leads to a situation whereby it is bacteriological findings that are treated, not infections.
Sign-in/Register to access full text options 
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a callDisclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.
