Skip to main content

History taking and leukocyturia predict the presence of asymptomatic bacteriuria in women with diabetes mellitus


Objective: To investigate the accuracy of history taking to diagnose asymptomatic bacteriuria (ASB) in diabetic women, and the added value of leukocyturia. Methods: Data were obtained from a multicenter study including 465 women with diabetes. Many patient characteristics were considered as potential diagnostic determinants. A urinary leukocyte count and a urine culture (the criterion standard) were performed. Logistic regression analyses were performed and areas under the receiver operating characteristic curves (AUC) were calculated. Results: For women with type 1 diabetes (n=236; ASB 11%), duration of diabetes and glycosylated hemoglobin (GHb) were powerful predictors of ASB. The AUC of the model including these two variables was 0.66 (95% confidence interval (CI) 0.53–0.78). After addition of leukocyturia, the AUC increased considerably to 0.78 (95% CI 0.68–0.88; p = 0.018). For women with type 2 diabetes (n = 229; ASB 19%), age and the number of symptomatic urinary tract infections (UTIs) in the previous year were the strongest predictors of ASB. The AUC of the model including these variables was 0.70 (95% CI 0.61–0.80). After addition of leukocyturia, the AUC increased to 0.79 (95% CI 0.71–0.86; p=0.023). Conclusion: In diabetic women, ASB can be diagnosed using two easily obtainable variables (duration of diabetes and GHb for women with type 1 diabetes, and age and the number of UTIs in the previous year for women with type 2 diabetes) in combination with a urinary leukocyte count. This results in a model with sufficient accuracy (AUC > 0.75).

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution.


  1. 1.

    Wheat LJ. Infection and diabetes mellitus. Diabetes Care 1980; 3: 187–197.

    Google Scholar 

  2. 2.

    Schmitt JK, Fawcett CJ, Gullickson G. Asymptomatic bacteriuria and hemoglobin A1. Diabetes Care 1986; 9: 518–520.

    Google Scholar 

  3. 3.

    Keane EM, Boyko EJ, Barth Reller L, Hamman RF. Prevalence of asymptomatic bacteriuria in subjects with NIDDM in San Luis Valley of Colorado. Diabetes Care 1988; 11: 708–712.

    Google Scholar 

  4. 4.

    Geerlings SE, Stolk RP, Camps MJL, et al. Asymptomatic bacteriuria may be considered a complication in women with diabetes. Diabetes Care 2000; 23: 744–749.

    Google Scholar 

  5. 5.

    Nicolle LE. Asymptomatic bacteriuria in diabetic women. Diabetes Care 2000; 23: 722–723.

    Google Scholar 

  6. 6.

    Geerlings SE, Stolk RP, Camps MJL, et al. Conse-quences of asymptomatic bacteriuria in women with diabetes mellitus. Arch Intern Med 2001; 161: 1421–1427.

    Google Scholar 

  7. 7.

    Harding GK, Zhanel GG, Nicolle LE, Cheang M. Antimicrobial treatment in diabetic women with asymptomatic bacteriuria. New Engl J Med 2002; 347: 1576–1583.

    Google Scholar 

  8. 8.

    Geerlings SE, Meiland R, Hoepelman AI. Treatment of asymptomatic bacteriuria in diabetic women. New Engl J Med 2003; 348: 957–958.

    Google Scholar 

  9. 9.

    Nelson RG, Knowler WC, Pettitt DJ, Bennett PH. National Diabetes Data Group (eds). Kidney diseases in diabetes, 2nd edn. Bethesda: National Institute of Health, Diabetes in America 1995; (16): 349–401.

    Google Scholar 

  10. 10.

    Members of the medical research council bacteriuria committee. Recommended terminology of urinary tract infection. Br Med J 1979; 2: 717–719.

    Google Scholar 

  11. 11.

    Van der Schouw YT, Verbeek AL, Ruijs JH. ROC curves for the initial assessment of new diagnostic tests. Fam Pract 1992; 9: 506–511.

    Google Scholar 

  12. 12.

    De Long ER, De Long DM, Clarke-Pearson DL. Comparing the areas under two or more correlated receiver operating characteristic curves: A nonparametric approach. Biometrics 1988; 44: 837–845.

    Google Scholar 

  13. 13.

    Bent S, Nallamothu BK, Simel DL, Fihn SD, Saint S. Does this women have an acute uncomplicated urinary tract infection? JAMA 2002; 287: 2701–2710.

    Google Scholar 

  14. 14.

    Hurlbut TA, Littenberg B, The diagnostic technology assessment consortium. The diagnostic accuracy of rapid dipstick tests to predict urinary tract infection. Am J Clin Pathol 1991; 96: 582–588.

    Google Scholar 

  15. 15.

    Wigton RS, Hoellerich VL, Ornato JP, Leu V, Mazz-otta LA, Cheng IH. Use of clinical ndings in the 1026. diagnosis of urinary tract infection in women. Arch Intern Med 1985; 145: 2222–2227.

    Google Scholar 

  16. 16.

    Stamm WE. Measurement of pyuria and its relation to bacteriuria. Am J Med 1983; 75(1B): 53–58.

    Google Scholar 

  17. 17.

    Geerlings SE, Brouwer EC, Van Kessel KCPM, Gaa-stra W, Stolk RP, Hoepelman AIM. Cytokine secretion is impaired in women with diabetes mellitus. Eur J Clin Invest 2000; 30: 995–1001.

    Google Scholar 

  18. 18.

    Zhanel GG, Harding GK, Nicolle LE. Asymptomatic bacteriuria in patients with diabetes mellitus. Rev Infect Dis 1991; 13: 150–154.

    Google Scholar 

  19. 19.

    Kass EH. Asymptomatic infections of the urinary tract. T Assoc Am Physicians 1956; 69: 56–64.

    Google Scholar 

  20. 20.

    Geerlings SE, Brouwer EC, Gaastra W, Hoepelman AIM. Is a second urine necessary for the diagnosis of asymptomatic bacteriuria? Clin Infect Dis 2000; 31: E3–4.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information



Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Meiland, R., Geerlings, S.E., Stolk, R.P. et al. History taking and leukocyturia predict the presence of asymptomatic bacteriuria in women with diabetes mellitus. Eur J Epidemiol 19, 1021–1027 (2004).

Download citation

  • Asymptomatic bacteriuria
  • Diabetes mellitus
  • Diagnosis
  • Leukocyturia
  • Logistic regression
  • ROC curve