Acta Pædiatrica ISSN 0803–5253

REVIEW ARTICLE

Febrile urinary tract infections in young children: recommendations for the

diagnosis, treatment and follow-up
Anita Ammenti1, Luigi Cataldi2, Roberto Chimenz3, Vassilios Fanos4, Angela La Manna5, Giuseppina Marra6, Marco Materassi7, Paolo Pecile8,
Marco Pennesi9, Lorena Pisanello10, Felice Sica11, Antonella Toffolo12, Giovanni Montini (giovanni.montini@aosp.bo.it) (Coordinator)13 on behalf
of the Italian Society of Pediatric Nephrology
1.Department of Pediatrics, University of Parma, Parma, Italy
2.Division of Neonatology, Catholic University Sacro Cuore, Roma, Italy
3.Pediatric Nephrology and Dialysis Unit, Department of Pediatrics, G. Martino Hospital, University of Messina, Messina, Italy
4.NICU and Puericulture Department, University of Cagliari, Cagliari, Italy
5.Department of Pediatrics, Second University of Napoli, Napoli, Italy
6.Pediatric Nephrology Unit, Fondazione Ca’ Granda IRCCS, Milano, Italy
7.Pediatric Nephrology Unit, Meyer Hospital, Firenze, Italy
8.Pediatric Department, University Hospital, Udine, Italy
9.Department of Pediatrics, Institute for Child and Maternal Health, IRCCS Burlo Garofolo, Trieste, Italy
10.Family Pediatrician, Padova, Italy
11.Pediatric Unit, Ospedali Riuniti, Foggia, Italy
12.Pediatric Unit, Hospital of Oderzo, Oderzo, Italy
13.Pediatric Nephrology and Dialysis Unit, Department of Pediatrics, Azienda Ospedaliero-Universitaria Sant’Orsola-Malpighi, Bologna, Italy

Keywords ABSTRACT
Antibiotic treatment, Diagnosis, Febrile urinary tract
infection, Prophylaxis, Vesico-ureteral reflux
We report the recommendations for the diagnosis, treatment, imaging evaluation and use
of antibiotic prophylaxis in children with the first febrile urinary tract infection, aged
Correspondence
Giovanni Montini, M.D., Nephrology, Dialysis Unit,
2 months to 3 years. They were prepared by a working group of the Italian Society of
Department of Pediatrics, Azienda Ospedaliera Pediatric Nephrology after careful review of the available literature and a consensus
Universitaria Sant’Orsola-Malpighi Bologna, Via decision, when clear evidence was not available.
Massarenti 11, Padiglione 13, 40138 Bologna, Italy.
Tel: +390516364617 |
Conclusion: These recommendations are endorsed by the Italian Society of
Fax: +390512086000 | Pediatric Nephrology. They can also be a tool of comparison with other existing guidelines
E-mail: giovanni.montini@aosp.bo.it in issues in which much controversy still exists.
Received
19 July 2011; revised 12 October 2011;
accepted 24 November 2011.

DOI:10.1111/j.1651-2227.2011.02549.x

INTRODUCTION Grade of evidence was attributed according to the SORT

The recommendations suggested in this study represent the
view point of the Italian Society of Pediatric Nephrology,
which endorsed the document. They were developed by a
working group of paediatricians and paediatric nephrolo-
gists, after careful review of the available literature and a
consensus decision, when clear evidence was not available.
The recommendations apply to infants and young chil-
dren, 2 months to 3 years of age, with the first febrile
(‡38C) urinary tract infection (UTI). We excluded neo-
nates because of the peculiarities and specific treatment
needs and children older than 3 years of age because of the
lower risk of nephro-urologic abnormalities and different
clinical presentations. Children with immunodeficiency,
with a previous workup for congenital malformation of the
kidney or urinary tract or requiring admission to intensive
care unit are excluded. The recommendations are intended
for use by all physicians dealing with febrile UTIs in chil-
dren inside and outside the hospital and by specialists in
paediatric and adult nephrology and urology.
criteria (1), to provide the physician with a clear recommen-
dation that is strong [A], moderate [B] or weak [C] in sup-
port of a particular intervention. Four major topics are
Key notes
• Diagnosis of urinary tract infection (UTI) requires analy-
sis of urine by dipstick or microscopy and urine culture.
Clean voided midstream collection is recommended.
• Oral antibiotic treatment is recommended when the
febrile child is in good general conditions. Cephalospo-
rins or amoxicillin–clavulanate are the suggested
antibiotics.
• Ultrasound is always recommended after the first febrile
UTI, while cystography only in the presence of risk fac-
tors or anomalies on ultrasound. Antibiotic prophylaxis
is recommended for children with reflux grade ‡III.

ª2011 The Author(s)/Acta Pædiatrica ª2011 Foundation Acta Pædiatrica 2012 101, pp. 451–457 451
Urinary tract infections in young children
considered: diagnosis, treatment, imaging and antibiotic
prophylaxis.
DIAGNOSIS
When to suspect a urinary tract infection?
Urinary tract infection should be considered on the basis of
clinical criteria, the age and sex of the child. Fever may be
the only symptom, especially in younger children (2,3)
[grade A]. The prevalence in children <2 years of age, with
unexplained fever, is 5% (4). Fever >39C is considered a
clinical marker of renal parenchymal involvement (2).
Uncircumcised boys are more frequently affected than girls
during the first 6 months of life; thereafter, the opposite is
true (5). Symptoms may include vomiting, failure to thrive,
irritability, crying on micturition, dysuria, urgency and
abdominal pain and may vary with the age of the child.
What to do when a urinary tract infection is suspected?
Urine should be collected and analysed by dipstick or
microscopy to identify children in whom UTI is very likely
(6) and by urine culture to make a definitive diagnosis (2)
[grade B]. How to collect urine for culture has been exten-
sively analysed by the NICE working group (7) and by
Whiting et al. (8). Suprapubic aspiration (SPA) and tran-
surethral bladder catheterization are least likely to yield a
contaminated growth result, but these methods are not fea-
sible as a routine procedure in primary care, at least in Italy.
Clean voided urine (CVU) has accuracy similar to SPA for
the diagnosis of UTI (8). We therefore consider CVU as the
method of choice [grade B]. When it is correctly performed
(9,10), bag-collected specimen is considered acceptable as
the second option (8,11) [grade C].
In the clinical setting, the method for urine collection var-
ies according to the child’s clinical conditions:
Febrile child in poor general condition or severely ill-
appearing:
Urine should be collected by transurethral bladder catheter-
ization (3,7) [grade A]
Febrile child in good general condition:
Clean voided urine represents the method of choice. If
unsuccessful, a bag applied to the perineum is an
acceptable alternative. The bag-collected specimen
can be utilized to perform a dipstick test or micros-
copy, and a midstream sample can then be collected
for urine culture (3) [grade B].
What is the role of urine dipstick, microscopy and urine
culture?
Sensitivity and specificity of the components of urinalysis
(dipstick and microscopy) are well summarized in a recent
metanalysis (6) and are reported in Table 1.
Results of the leucocyte esterase test are comparable to
those of WBC (5 ⁄ hpf) by microscopy; microscopy for bacte-
ria with Gram stain is the single rapid test with the highest
specificity and sensitivity. The diagnostic performance of
452 ª2011 The Author(s)/Acta Pædiatrica ª2011 Foundation Acta Pædiatrica 2012 101, pp. 451–457
Ammenti et al.
Table 1 Sensitivity and specificity of urinary dipstick (leucocyte esterase and nitrite)
and microscopy (WBC and bacteria) for diagnosis of urinary tract infection [adapted
with permission from Williams GJ (6)]
Sensitivity % Specificity %
Test (range) (range)
Leucocyte esterase 79 (73–84) 87 (80–92)
Nitrite 49 (41–57) 98 (96–99)
Leucocyte esterase or nitrite positive 88 (82–91) 79 (69–87)
Both leucocyte esterase and nitrite 45 (30–61) 98 (96–99)
positive
Microscopy: WBCs 74 (67–80) 86 (82–90)
Microscopy: unstained bacteria 88 (75–94) 92 (83–96)
Microscopy: Gram stain 91 (80–96) 96 (92–98)
dipstick testing has been reported significantly less reliable
in children younger than 2 years (12); therefore, in this case,
urine microscopy for bacteria is recommended [grade B]. If
fever persists in children with a normal previous urinalysis
and no antibiotic treatment, a second test (dipstick or
microscopy) is recommended after 24–48 h [grade C].
Urine microscopy should be performed on a fresh speci-
men [grade B] by an expert operator. Urine culture is
required to confirm the diagnosis (6). The result is consid-
ered positive if the culture demonstrates the growth of a sin-
gle organism with the following colony count [grade C]:
• Transurethral bladder catheterization: >10 000 colony-
forming units (CFU) ⁄ mL (3)
• CVU: >100 000 CFU ⁄ mL (3)
• Urinary bag: >100 000 CFU ⁄ mL (3)
A practical approach, based on the result of leucocyte
esterase and nitrite dipstick analysis, is suggested in Table 2.
Are blood tests necessary if a urinary tract infection is sus-
pected?
In the published guidelines and in the most recent literature,
C-reactive protein and WBC are not considered useful diag-
nostic tools to identify renal parenchymal involvement
because of a low specificity (13) [grade B]. In febrile chil-
dren with good general conditions, blood tests are not nec-
essary. In severely ill children, procalcitonin is considered
the best test to diagnose the presence of a renal parenchy-
mal involvement (13,14).
TREATMENT
In a febrile child with suggestive clinical signs, positive urine
microscopy and ⁄ or dipstick, antibiotic treatment has to be
initiated after a urine specimen for culture has been
obtained. Prompt antibiotic treatment is necessary to eradi-
cate the infection, to prevent bacteraemia (in particular,
during the first months of life), to improve the clinical con-
dition and possibly to reduce the risk of renal scarring.
Recent data do not support the reduction in renal scarring
as no difference in the frequency and severity of scarring
Ammenti et al. Urinary tract infections in young children

Table 2 Interpretation and suggested practical approach following the result of nitrite and leucocyte esterase urine dipstick
Nitrite positive UTI very likely Perform urine culture and start antibiotic on an empiric basis
Leucocyte esterase positive
Nitrite positive UTI very likely Perform urine culture and start antibiotic on an empiric basis
Leucocyte esterase negative
Nitrite negative UTI likely Perform urine culture and start antibiotic on an empiric basis
Leucocyte esterase positive
Nitrite negative UTI quite unlikely Search for alternative diagnosis
Leucocyte esterase negative Repeat urine dipstick if fever persists

UTI, urinary tract infection.

was found when antibiotic was initiated within 4 days from
the onset of fever (15). The consequences of longer delays
are unknown.
How to treat?
If the UTI is complicated, i.e. when the child appears toxic
or severely dehydrated or is vomiting, or if there are con-
cerns regarding compliance, treatment should be started
parenterally and continued with an oral antibiotic after 2–
4 days (2) [grade A]. If the UTI is not complicated, i.e. when
the febrile child is in good clinical conditions, only slightly
dehydrated but able to retain oral fluids and medications
and a good compliance is expected, treatment should be
given by the oral route [grade A]. The results of the oral ver-
sus parenteral route do not differ regarding duration of
fever, recurrence of UTI and incidence of scars 6–
12 months after infection (16,17) [grade A]. While awaiting
the results of antimicrobial sensitivity testing, antibiotic
treatment has to be chosen on an empiric basis, ideally with
the help of local resistance patterns. As a result of increasing
resistance of Escherichia coli to amoxicillin, amoxicillin–
clavulanic acid or cephalosporin are among the most widely
utilized oral drugs (2,3,7,16–20). If the oral route cannot be
used, cefotaxime, ceftriaxone or an aminoglycoside in chil-
dren allergic to beta-lactam antibiotics can be administered
parenterally for 2–4 days, followed by an oral antibiotic
course (2,17) [grade A] (Table 3).
How long to treat?
There is no consensus in the literature on the optimal dura-
tion of antimicrobial therapy (18). Studies comparing anti-
biotic courses of different duration in acute pyelonephritis
are lacking. 7–14 days of antimicrobial treatment is gener-
ally recommended, while a 10-day course seems reasonable
and appropriate [grade C]. However, parenteral therapy
can be limited to 3 days in most cases, followed by a 7-day
oral course, as treatment failure does not appear to be asso-
ciated with the duration of intravenous antibiotic treatment
(23) [grade B].
When should a child be hospitalized?
Hospital admission is indicated in the following situations
(3) [grade C]:
• Infants younger than 3 months.
• Severely ill children (sepsis, dehydration and vomiting).
• Concern of noncompliance.
• Fever persisting after 3 days of appropriate antibiotic
treatment as shown by the sensitivity testing.

Table 3 Suggested drugs and dosage for antibiotic treatment of febrile urinary tract
infection
Oral therapy
Amoxicillin–Clavulanic acid:
50 mg ⁄ kg ⁄ day of
amoxicillin in three doses
Cephalosporins:
Cefixime: 8 mg ⁄ kg twice
daily 1st day, once
daily thereafter (16)
Ceftibuten: 9 mg ⁄ kg twice
daily 1st day, once
daily thereafter (19)
Parenteral therapy
Amoxicillin–Clavulanic acid: 100 mg ⁄ kg ⁄
day of amoxicillin in four doses by
i.v.infusion in 30 min
or
Ampicillin–Sulbactam: 100 mg ⁄ kg ⁄ day
of ampicillin in four doses by i.v.infusion
in 30 min
Cefotaxime: 150 mg ⁄ kg ⁄ day in 3–4 doses
Ceftriaxone: 50–75 mg ⁄ kg once daily
Aminoglycosides (once-daily administration
recently suggested) (21,22)
IMAGING
There is no consensus in the existing guidelines on imaging
evaluation in children following a febrile UTI. In children
younger than 2 years of age, a number of guidelines (2,3)
place importance on detecting vesico-ureteral reflux (VUR)
and therefore on the necessity to perform cystography. The
more recent NICE guidelines (7) only recommend a radio-
logic evaluation of the urinary tract in selected patients.
Similar opinions have been expressed by others (24,25),
who suggest the use of cystography only if US or radionu-
clide renal scan (RRS) demonstrates abnormalities. The use
of RRS to reveal the presence of renal parenchymal locali-
zation of the infection during the acute phase of the disease,
referred to as the top-down approach, limits cystography to
children showing pyelonephritis (26,27). A very recent
paper, examining the results of a prospective study on chil-
dren with the first febrile UTI, suggests that an abnormal US
is the key for performing a cystography (28).

ª2011 The Author(s)/Acta Pædiatrica ª2011 Foundation Acta Pædiatrica 2012 101, pp. 451–457 453
Urinary tract infections in young children
Lack of consensus in imaging evaluation depends mainly
on the following reasons:
1 The poor correlation between the severity of UTI and the
presence or absence of VUR;
2 the debated role of VUR in the appearance of renal
scars;
3 the trend of VUR to the spontaneous resolution;
4 the psychological stress and radiation of imaging; and
5 the unclear yield of the tests in improving the long-term
health of the patients.
A systematic review of the literature (24) and a recent
study (29) do not fully support the existing notion that
VUR is a crucial element for renal damage following a
UTI. Another reason that casts doubts on the absolute
need for the diagnosis of VUR is the finding that chronic
kidney damage is significantly related to congenital renal
dysplasia rather than to infections and VUR (30). Other
authors (31), on the contrary, describe a pivotal role of
VUR in the formation of renal scars. In addition, the role
of prophylaxis in reducing subsequent infections and scar-
ring is uncertain (32–37).
Therefore, there is no scientific evidence for a specific
diagnostic evaluation of children following a febrile UTI.
First febrile UTI
Urinary tract US
Abnormal
(hydronephrosis, ureteric dilatation, hypoplasia,
duplicated system, bladder abnormalities)
or Risk factors:
Further imaging unnecessary
- Abnormal prenatal US
- First degree relative with VUR
- Septicemia
- Chronic kidney disease
- Age < 6 month in a male infant
- Likely non-compliance of the family
- Abnormal bladder emptying
- No clinical response to correct antibiotic
treatment within 72 h
- Bacteria other than E. coli
Further imaging ( cystography, renal radionuclide scan)
Figure 1 Suggested imaging approach after a febrile urinary tract infection in
children aged 2 months to 3 years of age.
454
Ammenti et al.
Our recommendations represent a consensus of current
opinions and are subject to change as the results of further
well-conducted prospective studies become available.
We propose a flow chart (Fig. 1) aimed at diagnosing
higher-grade reflux, with or without renal damage, and at
avoiding unnecessary evaluation and treatment, potentially
harmful for children and families.
When should an ultrasound be performed?
Renal US is an important noninvasive tool, which allows a
re-evaluation and a more detailed description of prenatally
detected abnormalities (38,39) and can identify malforma-
tions (isolated hydronephrosis, hydroureteronephrosis,
renal hypoplasia, duplicated systems and bladder abnormal-
ities) associated with VUR in a significant percentage of
cases (40). This imaging technique needs standardization
(25), requiring examination of the longitudinal and trans-
verse diameters, echogenicity and cortico-medullary differ-
entiation of the kidney and measurement of antero-
posterior diameter of the pelvis with full and empty bladder,
ureteric dilatation, bladder wall and postvoiding volume.
Routinely, US can be performed within 1–2 months from
the infection; in children with no clinical response to a cor-
rect antibiotic therapy within 3 days, US should be per-
formed promptly [grade C] if renal abscess is suspected. If
US is normal and no risk factors are present, further imag-
ing is not indicated [grade B]. If US shows abnormalities or
risk factors are present, a complete morphologic evaluation
of the kidney and urinary tract (cystography and RRS) is
indicated [grade B].
Suggested risk factors include the following (Fig. 1):
Normal
In utero or postnatal US abnormalities: hydronephrosis,
ureteral dilatation, duplicated system, renal hypoplasia,
No risk factors
loss of cortico-medullary differentiation or abnormal
parenchymal echogenicity, bladder wall thickening or
irregularity, postmicturating abnormal residual urine
volume and bladder diverticula (25,28) [grade B].
Family history of VUR: from a recent meta-analysis, the
prevalence of VUR is 27.4% (range 2.9–51.9) in siblings
and 35.7% (range 16.4–61) in offspring screened (41)
[grade B].
Septicaemia: UTI is associated with sepsis in about 10% of
infants. When sepsis is present, the risk of urologic
abnormalities has been reported higher (42,43) [grade
2nd febrile UTI C].
Renal insufficiency (24,44) [grade A].
Male infants <6 months of age [grade C].
Suspicion of noncompliance of the family, which requires a
more stringent diagnostic approach, to avoid dropouts
and the loss to follow-up of children that could be at risk
of renal damage [grade C].
Micturition abnormalities or thickened bladder wall, which
may indicate posterior urethral valves (45) [grade B].
Absence of a clinical response to antibiotics within 72 h,
with persistence of fever [grade C].
Pathogens other than E. coli. P fimbriated E. coli bind to
uroepithelial cells and resist to the normal urine flow.
ª2011 The Author(s)/Acta Pædiatrica ª2011 Foundation Acta Pædiatrica 2012 101, pp. 451–457
Ammenti et al.
Nonfimbriated bacteria ascend the urinary tract with the
help of obstruction or reflux (43,46) [grade B].
When should further renal imaging be performed?
In a child with an abnormal US or the presence of one of
the previous risk factors, we suggest further imaging of the
urinary tract (cystography) and the renal parenchyma
(RRS) [grade B]. The choice of the technique for the diagno-
sis of VUR (cystosonography, radionuclide cystography and
voiding cystourethrography) depends on the expertise of
the local team, keeping in mind that imaging should be per-
formed with the minimum radiating dose. The technique
having no radiating dose is cystosonography. Scientific evi-
dence has shown that this technique has a high sensitivity
and specificity (47–49). The limits of the method could be
overcome by skilled operators who, however, are not yet
widely available (50,51) [grade B]. Radionuclide cystogra-
phy, although not showing exact anatomical details and not
visualizing the urethra, has a high sensitivity also for tran-
sient low-grade VUR. Cystourethrography (VCUG) remains
the gold standard, permitting an exact grading according to
the International Working Group on VUR in children (52),
but because of its higher radiating dose, it should be limited
to selected patients (in particular, to males in whom there is
a suspicion of posterior urethral valves). The timing of cys-
tourethrography can be established according to local orga-
nization and to family convenience, as there is evidence
that neither the presence nor the grade of VUR is influenced
by the timing of the examination following diagnosis of UTI
(53–55) [grade B].
In all children with an abnormal US or in whom VUR has
been shown, a renal cortical scintigraphy (with DMSA) is
recommended 6 months after the febrile UTI, to obtain a
morphologic (presence of UTI-related renal scarring) and
functional evaluation (relative renal function) of the renal
parenchyma [grade C].
In children with febrile UTI presenting none of the risk
factors discussed above, no further imaging of the urinary
tract and of the renal parenchyma is recommended [grade
C]. In case of recurrence of febrile UTIs, cystography and
renal DMSA scan should be performed [grade B].
ANTIBIOTIC PROPHYLAXIS
Antibiotic prophylaxis has been widely used in the past in
children following a febrile UTI, in the hypothesis that renal
damage and its progression could be avoided by preventing
recurrent UTI. The effectiveness of prophylaxis remains
uncertain. In a meta-analysis (56), comprising in particular
five recent trials (32–36), there is no evidence for a positive
effect of antibiotic prophylaxis in the prevention of recur-
rent febrile UTIs and kidney damage. It is important to
acknowledge that most of the evaluated studies had limita-
tions regarding the methodological design and enrolled
children mainly with no or with reflux grade up to III. On
the contrary, in one of the largest trials (576 children) com-
prised in the metanalysis, the use of antibiotic prophylaxis
ª2011 The Author(s)/Acta Pædiatrica ª2011 Foundation Acta Pædiatrica 2012 101, pp. 451–457
Urinary tract infections in young children
demonstrates a modest favourable effect on the recurrence
of both symptomatic and febrile UTIs (36). A more recent
RCT (203 children) shows favourable effects on the recur-
rence of infections, especially in girls >1 year old, with
reflux grades III and IV (37). There was no benefit in boys
from any of the treatments (antibiotic prophylaxis or endo-
scopic correction of reflux) in that study. An increased bac-
terial resistance to the prophylactic drug has been described
in these studies.
When antibiotic prophylaxis should be recommended?
Antibiotic prophylaxis should not be recommended rou-
tinely in infants and children after the first UTI [grade A].
It has to be considered in infants and in children:
1 after the treatment for the acute episode until cystogra-
phy is performed [grade C].
2 with reflux grade ‡III [grade B].
3 with recurrent febrile UTIs [grade C] (‡3 febrile UTIs
within 12 months).
The optimal duration of antibiotic prophylaxis is not well
established; we suggest 1–2 years [grade C]. Amoxicillin–
clavulanic acid and cotrimoxazole are the most common
antibiotics utilized in the literature, but their resistance rates
are increasing.
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
The working group of the Italian Society of Pediatric
Nephrology is grateful to the association ‘Il Sogno di Stef-
ano (Stefano’s Dream)’ for financial support in preparation
of these recommendations.
DISCLOSURE
All authors participated in writing the first draft of the man-
uscript, and no honorarium, grant or other forms of pay-
ment were given to anyone to produce the manuscript.
References
1. Ebell MH, Siwek J, Weiss BD, Woolf SH, Susman J, Ewigman
B, et al. Strength of Recommendation Taxonomy (SORT): a
patient-centered approach to grading evidence in the medical
literature. Am Fam Physician 2004; 69: 549–57.
2. American Academy of Pediatrics. Practice parameter: the diag-
nosis, treatment, and evaluation of the initial urinary tract
infection in febrile infants and young children. Pediatrics 1999;
103: 843–52.
3. UTI Guideline Team. Cincinnati Children’s Hospital Medical
Center: evidence-based care guideline for medical management
of first urinary tract infection in children 12 years of age or less.
Guideline 7, pages 1–23, November, 2006. Available at: http://
www.cincinnatichildrens.org/svc/dept-div/health-policy/ev-
based/uti.htm. (accessed March 14, 2011).
4. Hoberman A, Chao HP, Keller DM, Hickey R, Davis HW, Ellis
D. Prevalence of urinary tract infection in febrile infants. J Pedi-
atr 1993; 123: 17–23.
455
Urinary tract infections in young children
5. Mårild S, Jodal U. Incidence rate of first-time symptomatic uri-
nary tract infection in children under 6 years of age. Acta Pae-
diatr 1998; 87: 549–52.
6. Williams GJ, Macaskill P, Chan SF, Turner RM, Hodson E,
Craig JC. Absolute and relative accuracy of rapid urine tests for
urinary tract infection in children: a meta-analysis. Lancet
Infect Dis 2010; 10: 240–50.
7. National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence (Nice)
Guideline. Urinary tract infection in children: diagnosis, treat-
ment and long-term management. Issue date: August, 2007.
Available at: http://www.nice.org.uk/nicemedia/pdf/CG54full-
guideline.pdf. (accessed March 14, 2011).
8. Whiting P, Westwood M, Bojke L, Palmer S, Richardson G,
Cooper J, et al. Clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of
tests for the diagnosis and investigation of urinary tract infec-
tion in children: a systematic review and economic model.
Health Technol Assess 2006; 10: 1–154.
9. Stockley MA. Urine specimen collection. Gale Encyclopedia of
Nursing and Allied Health, 2002. Available at: http://
www.healthline.com/urine-specimen-collection 10. (accessed
on March 5, 2011).
10. MedlinePlus Medical Encyclopedia [homepage on the internet]
Urinalysis. Clean catch urine specimen, updated 1-10-2010 by
Zieve D, Liou LS. Available at: http://www.nlm.nih.gov/med-
lineplus/ency/article/003751.htm. (accessed on March 5,
2011).
11. Schroeder AR, Newman TB, Wasserman RC, Finch SA, Pantell
RH. Choice of urine collection methods for the diagnosis of uri-
nary tract infection in young, febrile infants. Arch Pediatr Ado-
lesc Med 2005; 159: 915–22.
12. Mori R, Yonemoto N, Fitzgerald A, Tullus K, Verrier-Jones K,
Lakhanpaul M. Diagnostic performance of urine dipstick test-
ing in children with suspected UTI: a systematic review of rela-
tionship with age and comparison with microscopy. Acta
Paediatr 2010; 99: 581–4.
13. Pecile P, Romanello C. Procalcitonin and pyelonephritis in chil-
dren. Curr Opin Infect Dis 2007; 20: 83–7.
14. Mantadakis E, Plessa E, Vouloumanou EK, Karageorgopoulos
DE, Chatzimichael A, Falagas ME. Serum procalcitonin for
prediction of renal parenchymal involvement in children with
Urinary tract infections: a meta-analysis of prospective clinical
studies. J Pediatr 2009; 155: 875–81.
15. Hewitt IK, Zucchetta P, Rigon L, Maschio F, Molinari PP, Tom-
asi L, et al. Early treatment of acute pyelonephritis in children
fails to reduce renal scarring: data from the Italian Renal Infec-
tion Study Trials. Pediatrics 2008; 122: 486–90.
16. Hoberman A, Wald ER, Hickey RW, Baskin M, Charron M,
Majd M, et al. Oral versus Initial intravenous therapy for uri-
nary tract infections in young febrile children. Pediatrics 1999;
104: 79–86.
17. Montini G, Toffolo A, Zucchetta P, Dall’Amico R, Gobber D,
Calderan A, et al. Antibiotic treatment for pyelonephritis in
children: multicentre randomized controlled non-inferiority
trial. BMJ 2007; 335: 386.
18. Hodson EM, Willis NS, Craig JC. Antibiotics for acute
pyelonephritis in children. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2007;
4: Art. no. CD003772. doi: 10.1002/
14651858.CD003772.pub3.
19. Neuhaus TJ, Berger C, Buechner K, Parvex P, Bischoff G, Goet-
schel P, et al. Randomised trial of oral versus sequential intra-
venous ⁄ oral cephalosporins in children with pyelonephritis.
Eur J Pediatr 2008; 167: 1037–47.
20. Mårild S, Jodal U, Sandberg T. Ceftibuten versus trimetho-
prim-sulfamethoxazole for oral treatment of febrile uri-
nary tract infection in children. Pediatr Nephrol 2009; 24:
521–6.
456 ª2011 The Author(s)/Acta Pædiatrica ª2011 Foundation Acta Pædiatrica 2012 101, pp. 451–457
Ammenti et al.
21. Carapetis JR, Jaquiery AL, Buttery JP, Starr M, Cranswick NE,
Kohn S, et al. Randomized, controlled trial comparing once
daily and three times daily gentamicin in children with urinary
tract infections. Pediatr Infect Dis J 2001; 20: 240–6.
22. Contopoulos-Ioannidis DG, Giotis ND, Baliatsa DV, Ioannidis
JP. Extended-interval aminoglycoside administration for chil-
dren: a meta-analysis. Pediatrics 2004; 114: e111–8.
23. Brady PW, Conway PH, Goudie A. Length of intravenous anti-
biotic therapy and treatment failure in infants with urinary tract
infections. Pediatrics 2010; 126: 196–203.
24. Gordon I, Barkovics M, Pindoria S, Cole TJ, Woolf AS. Primary
vesicoureteric reflux as a predictor of renal damage in children
hospitalized with urinary tract infection: a systematic review
and meta-analysis. J Am Soc Nephrol 2003; 14: 739–44.
25. Riccabona M, Avni FE, Blickman JG, Dacher JN, Darge K,
Lobo ML, et al. Imaging recommendations in paediatric urora-
diology: minutes of the ESPR workgroup session on urinary
tract infection, fetal hydronephrosis, urinary tract ultrasonogra-
phy and voiding cystourethrography. Barcelona, Spain, June
2007. Pediatr Radiol 2008; 38: 138–45.
26. Preda I, Jodal U, Sixt R, Stokland E, Hansson S. Normal dim-
ercaptosuccinic acid scintigraphy makes voiding cystourethrog-
raphy unnecessary after urinary tract infection. J Pediatr 2007;
151: 581–4.
27. Hansson S, Dhamey M, Sigström O, Sixt R, Stokland E, Wen-
nerström M, et al. Dimercapto-succinic acid scintigraphy
instead of voiding cystourethrography for infants with urinary
tract infection. J Urol 2004; 172: 1071–3.
28. Ismaili K, Wissing KM, Lolin K, Quoq Le P, Christophe C, Le-
page P, et al. Characteristics of first urinary tract infection with
fever in children. A prospective clinical and imaging study. Pe-
diatr Infect Dis J 2011; 30: 371–4.
29. Moorthy I, Easty M, McHugh K, Ridout D, Biassoni L, Gordon
I. The presence of vesicoureteric reflux does not identify a pop-
ulation at risk for renal scarring following a first urinary tract
infection. Arch Dis Child 2005; 90: 733–6.
30. Montini G, Tullus K, Hewitt IK. Febrile urinary tract infections
in children. N Engl J Med 2011; 365: 239–50.
31. Polito C, Rambaldi PF, Signoriello G, Mansi L, La Manna A.
Permanent renal parenchymal defects after febrile UTI are clo-
sely associated with vesicoureteric reflux. Pediatr Nephrol
2006; 21: 521–6.
32. Garin EH, Olavarria F, Garcia Nieto V, Valenciano B, Campos
A, Young L. Clinical significance of primary vesicoureteral
reflux and urinary antibiotic prophylaxis after acute pyelone-
phritis: a multicenter, randomized, controlled study. Pediatrics
2006; 117: 626–32.
33. Roussey-Kesler G, Gadjos V, Idres N, Horen B, Ichay L, Leclair
MD, et al. Antibiotic prophylaxis for the prevention of recur-
rent urinary tract infection in children with low-grade vesico-
ureteral reflux: results from a prospective randomized study. J
Urol 2008; 179: 674–9.
34. Montini G, Rigon L, Zucchetta P, Fregonese F, Toffolo A, Gob-
ber D, et al. Prophylaxis after first febrile urinary tract infection
in children? A multicenter, randomized, controlled, noninferi-
ority trial. Pediatrics 2008; 122: 1064–71.
35. Pennesi M, Travan L, Peratoner L, Bordugo A, Cattaneo A,
Ronfani L, et al. North East Italy Prophylaxis in VUR study
group. Is antibiotic prophylaxis in children with vesicoureteral
reflux effective in preventing pyelonephritis and renal scars? A
randomized, controlled trial. Pediatrics 2008; 121: e1489–94.
36. Craig JC, Simpson JM, Williams GJ, Lowe A, Reynolds GJ,
McTaggart SJ, et al. Prevention of recurrent urinary tract infec-
tion in children with Vesicoureteric Reflux and Normal Renal
Tracts (PRIVENT) Investigators. N Engl J Med 2009; 361:
1748–59.
Ammenti et al.
37. Brandström S, Esbjörner E, Herthelius M, Swerkersson S, Jodal
U, Hansson S. The Swedish reflux trial in children: III. Urinary
tract infection pattern. J Urol 2010; 184: 286–91.
38. van Eerde AM, Meutgeert MH, de Jong TP, Giltay JC. Vesico-
ureteral reflux in children with prenatally detected hydroneph-
rosis: a systematic review. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol 2007; 29:
463–9.
39. Ismaili K, Hall M, Piepsz A, Wissing KM, Collier F, Schulman
C, et al. Primary Vesicoureteral reflux detected in neonates with
a history of fetal renal pelvis dilatation: a prospective clinical
and imaging study. J Pediatr 2006; 148: 222–7.
40. Huang HP, Lai YC, Tsai IJ, Chen SY, Tsau YK. Renal ultraso-
nography should be done routinely in children with first urinary
tract infections. Urology 2008; 71: 439–43.
41. Skoog SJ, Peters CA, Arant BS Jr, Copp HL, Elder JS, Hudson
RG, et al. Pediatric Vesicoureteral Reflux Guidelines Panel
Summary Report: Clinical Practice Guidelines for Screening
Siblings of Children With Vesicoureteral Reflux and Neo-
nates ⁄ Infants With Prenatal Hydronephrosis. J Urol 2010; 184:
1145–51.
42. Lacroix J, Chabot G, Delage G, Jeliu G. Septicemia associated
with urinary infection in infants. A propos of 36 cases. Arch Fr
Pediatr 1984; 41: 99–101.
43. Jantunen ME, Siitonen A, Ala-Houhala M, Ashorn P, Föhr A,
Koskimies O, et al. Predictive factors associated with significant
urinary tract abnormalities in infants with pyelonephritis. Pedi-
atr Infect Dis J 2001; 20: 597–601.
44. Gargollo PC, Diamond D. Therapy insight: what nephrologists
need to know about primary vesicoureteral reflux. Nat Clin
Pract Nephrol 2007; 3: 551–63.
45. Williams CR, Pérez LM, Joseph DB. Accuracy of renal-bladder
ultrasonography as a screening method to suggest posterior
urethral valves. J Urol 2001; 165: 2245–7.
46. Friedman S, Reif S, Assia A, Mishaal R, Levy I. Clinical and lab-
oratory characteristics of non-E. coli urinary tract infections.
Arch Dis Child 2006; 91: 845–6.
ª2011 The Author(s)/Acta Pædiatrica ª2011 Foundation Acta Pædiatrica 2012 101, pp. 451–457
Urinary tract infections in young children
47. Ascenti G, Chimenz R, Zimbaro G, Mazziotti S, Scribano E,
Fede C, et al. Potential role of colour-Doppler cystosonography
with echocontrast in the screening and follow-up of vesicouret-
eral reflux. Acta Paediatr 2000; 89: 1336–9.
48. Ascenti G, Zimbaro G, Mazziotti S, Chimenz R, Baldari S, Fede
C. Vesicoureteral reflux: comparison between urosonography
and radionuclide cystography. Pediatr Nephrol 2003; 18: 768–
71.
49. Piscitelli A, Galiano R, Serrao F, Concolino D, Vitale R, D’Am-
brosio G, et al. Which cystography in the diagnosis and grading
of vesicoureteral reflux? Pediatr Nephrol 2008; 23: 107–10.
50. Bosio M, Manzoni GA. Detection of posterior urethral valves
with voiding cystourethrography with echo contrast. J Urol
2002; 168: 1711–5.
51. Berrocal T, Gayà F, Arjonilla A. Vesicoureteral reflux: can the
urethra be adequately assessed by using contrast-enhanced
voiding US of the Bladder? Radiology 2005; 234: 235–41.
52. Lebowitz RL, Olbing H, Parkkulainen KV, Smellie JM, Tammi-
nen-Möbius TE. International system of radiographic grading
of vesicoureteric reflux. International Reflux Study in Children.
Pediatr Radiol 1985; 15: 105–9.
53. McDonald A, Scranton M, Gillespie R, Mahajan V, Edwards
GA. Voiding cystourethrograms and urinary tract infections:
how long to wait? Pediatrics 2000; 105: e50.
54. Sathapornwajana P, Dissaneewate P, McNeil E, Vac-
hvaninchsaiong P. Timing of voiding cystourethrogram after
urinary tract infection. Arch Dis Child 2008; 93: 229–31.
55. Doganis D, Mavronikou M, Delis D, Stamoyannou L, Siafas K,
Sinaniotis K. Timing of voiding cystouretrography in infants
with first time urinary infection. Pediatr Nephrol 2009; 24:
319–22.
56. Dai B, Liu Y, Jia J, Mei C. Long-term antibiotics for the preven-
tion of recurrent urinary tract infection in children: a systematic
review and meta-analysis. Arch Dis Child 2010; 95: 499–508.
457