<HashMap><database>biostudies-literature</database><scores/><additional><omics_type>Unknown</omics_type><volume>11(3)</volume><submitter>Xie R</submitter><pubmed_abstract>&lt;h4>Background&lt;/h4>There are differences in specificity and sensitivity of different routine urine tests for urinary tract infection, so meta-analysis was used to compare the diagnostic value of various urine analysis and detection methods in urinary tract infection, including bacterial culture, urine sediment microscopy, automated urinalysis, and routine urine dry chemical methods.&lt;h4>Methods&lt;/h4>The PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Library, SpringerLink, CNKI, and Wanfang databases were searched from inception to December 2021. Two system assessors independently screened the literature according to the inclusion and exclusion criteria. RevMan version 5.3 (the Cochrane Collaboration) and Meta-DiSc were used to calculate the combined sensitivity (Sen), specificity (Spe), positive likelihood ratio </pubmed_abstract><journal>Translational andrology and urology</journal><pagination>325-335</pagination><full_dataset_link>https://www.ebi.ac.uk/biostudies/studies/S-EPMC8984977</full_dataset_link><repository>biostudies-literature</repository><pubmed_title>Diagnostic value of different urine tests for urinary tract infection: a systematic review and meta-analysis.</pubmed_title><pmcid>PMC8984977</pmcid><pubmed_authors>Li G</pubmed_authors><pubmed_authors>Fu R</pubmed_authors><pubmed_authors>Li X</pubmed_authors><pubmed_authors>Xie R</pubmed_authors></additional><is_claimable>false</is_claimable><name>Diagnostic value of different urine tests for urinary tract infection: a systematic review and meta-analysis.</name><description>&lt;h4>Background&lt;/h4>There are differences in specificity and sensitivity of different routine urine tests for urinary tract infection, so meta-analysis was used to compare the diagnostic value of various urine analysis and detection methods in urinary tract infection, including bacterial culture, urine sediment microscopy, automated urinalysis, and routine urine dry chemical methods.&lt;h4>Methods&lt;/h4>The PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Library, SpringerLink, CNKI, and Wanfang databases were searched from inception to December 2021. Two system assessors independently screened the literature according to the inclusion and exclusion criteria. RevMan version 5.3 (the Cochrane Collaboration) and Meta-DiSc were used to calculate the combined sensitivity (Sen), specificity (Spe), positive likelihood ratio </description><dates><release>2022-01-01T00:00:00Z</release><publication>2022 Mar</publication><modification>2025-04-05T16:07:09.076Z</modification><creation>2025-04-05T16:07:09.076Z</creation></dates><accession>S-EPMC8984977</accession><cross_references><pubmed>35402195</pubmed><doi>10.21037/tau-22-65</doi></cross_references></HashMap>