A review of rapid urine screens for detection of bacteriuria and pyuria demonstrates a number of available alternatives to the culture method. Selection of one or more of these systems for routine use is dependent upon the laboratory and the patient population being tested. The laboratory approach to the diagnosis of urinary tract infection should consider the clinical diagnosis of the patient whenever possible. Keeping in mind that quantitative urine cultures alone cannot be used to detect infection in some patient populations unless lower colony counts are considered, a rapid screen may be a more practical approach. It has become accepted that 10(5) CFU/ml can no longer be used as the standard for all patient groups, that pyuria often is important in making the diagnosis of a urinary tract infection, and that most of the rapid screens are more sensitive than the culture method at 10(5) CFU/ml. Presently, no one approach can be recommended for all laboratories and all patient groups. However, each diagnostic laboratory should select one approach which is best for its situation. It is not practical, efficient, or cost effective to define a protocol for each possible clinical condition; however, all should be considered when developing a protocol. This protocol should be compatible with the patient population and communicated to the physicians. Use of a rapid screen should be beneficial to the patient, the physician, and the laboratory.