{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.021037868162692847, 'fraction_numerical': 0.011220196353436185, 'mean_word_length': 5.208695652173913, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
URINARY INFECTION IN GENERAL PRACTICE DIAGNOSIS AND TREATMENT

Sixty‐two female patients presenting with urinary symptoms in general practice were assessed on the basis of an examination of a single mid‐stream urine specimen. When allowance was made for contamination of the specimen by quantitative assessment of squamous epithelial cells in relation to pus cells in the urine, 37 out of 59 patients (63%) who were fully assessed were thought to have urinary infection. Seventy‐nine per cent of these also had evidence of vaginal infection. The organisms isolated were predominantly Gram‐negative bacilli, but Escherichia coli was present in only 52% of cases. In eight cases more than one organism was isolated.