Pediatric genitourinary disorders: three case studies
Select one of three paediatric GU cases — a 3-year-old with dysuria and secondary enuresis with an abnormal dipstick, a 15-year-old with acute scrotal pain and a blue dot sign, or a well 5-year-old with isolated 2+ proteinuria — and give a differential, the most likely diagnosis, and a treatment, management or referral plan with dosages.
Editorial process
Last reviewed · August 14, 2026
Which case is urgent, and which is reassurance
The three cases are deliberately different in urgency, and reading that correctly is most of the assessment. Case one is a 3-year-old with two days of dysuria and secondary enuresis seven months after toilet training, afebrile, with a dipstick showing 1+ nitrites, 1+ leukocytes and non-haemolysed blood — a urinary tract infection, and the dipstick findings are the reason. It needs culture confirmation before or alongside empiric treatment, and the loss of a previously acquired skill is itself the presenting clue. Case two is the urgent one. A 15-year-old with six hours of worsening unilateral scrotal pain and nausea has testicular torsion until proven otherwise, and the differential runs through torsion, torsion of the appendix testis and epididymitis. The blue dot sign and an elevated testicle are the discriminating findings, and the case is written so that both appear — which is exactly why the reasoning has to be explicit rather than assumed.
Case three is the one where the temptation is to over-treat. Maya is a well 5-year-old at a routine visit with normal blood pressure, normal growth and 2+ proteinuria on a single dipstick, with no blood, leukocytes or nitrites. Isolated proteinuria on one specimen in an otherwise well child is frequently transient or orthostatic, and the correct next step is repeat testing on a first-morning specimen rather than an immediate nephrology referral. Saying that, and saying what would change your mind — persistent proteinuria, hypertension, haematuria, oedema or growth failure — is a stronger answer than escalating. Whichever case you take, the preparation asks for appropriate dosages, and the referral question is asked directly: you are told to evaluate symptoms and determine whether to treat or refer, so make that decision explicitly rather than leaving it implied in the management plan. Name the specialty you would refer to and say what you would want them to answer.
Likely learning objectives
Inferred from the brief — check these against your own rubric.
- 01Interpret a paediatric urine dipstick in the context of the clinical presentation.
- 02Recognise acute scrotal pain as a time-critical differential.
- 03Identify the findings that discriminate between the causes of acute scrotal pain.
- 04Distinguish transient or orthostatic proteinuria from pathological proteinuria.
- 05Make an explicit decision to treat or to refer, with dosages where treatment is chosen.
Read the full question
Review every instruction before using the planning guidance that follows.
Turn the brief into deliverables
- 01One case study selected from the three provided.
- 02A differential diagnosis for that patient.
- 03The most likely diagnosis and why.
- 04A treatment and management plan with appropriate dosages.
- 05An explicit decision on whether to treat or refer for specialised care.
Differential, diagnosis, plan, dosages, referral
The case selected
The presentation summarised around the findings that matter.
Differential diagnosis
Candidates ordered by likelihood and by urgency, which are not the same.
Most likely diagnosis
The primary diagnosis with the findings that establish it.
Immediate management
What happens now, including any time-critical action.
Treatment with dosages
Pharmacologic and non-pharmacologic management, dosed for a child of this weight and age.
Treat or refer
The explicit decision, with what would change it.
The Burns chapter plus current paediatric guidance
Recommended databases
- Burns et al., Genitourinary Disorders chapter
- StatPearls via NCBI Bookshelf
- MedlinePlus
- PubMed
- American Academy of Pediatrics guidance
Search sequence
- 1.Read the assigned chapter section for the case you chose.
- 2.Read the current guidance on paediatric urinary tract infection diagnosis and treatment.
- 3.Read the differential for acute scrotal pain and the findings that separate its causes.
- 4.Read how isolated proteinuria in a well child is evaluated.
- 5.Collect weight-based paediatric dosing for any drug you recommend.
Reference shortlist
These are authoritative starting points, not a ready-made bibliography. A qualified reviewer must confirm that each source fits the assignment and supports the claim beside which it is cited.
Nothing here is cleared for citation until you have read it.
- 01
Urinary Tract Infections In Children
StatPearls, NCBI Bookshelf · 2024
Diagnosis and empiric treatment for case one, including the dipstick's test characteristics.
- 02
Testicular Torsion
StatPearls, NCBI Bookshelf · 2024
The time-critical diagnosis in case two and the findings that distinguish it from its mimics.
- 03
Proteinuria
StatPearls, NCBI Bookshelf · 2024
How isolated proteinuria is evaluated, which is what makes repeat testing the answer in case three.
- 04
Kidney Diseases | Renal Disease
MedlinePlus, National Library of Medicine · 2024
Family-facing material for the education and follow-up elements of the plan.
Review before submission
Common mistakes
- Treating the 3-year-old empirically without arranging culture confirmation.
- Missing that acute scrotal pain is time-critical and reasoning at leisure.
- Failing to use the blue dot sign and testicular position as discriminating findings.
- Referring Maya immediately instead of repeating on a first-morning specimen.
- Giving management with no dosages when the preparation asks for them.
- Leaving the treat-or-refer decision implicit.
Submission checklist
- One case is selected and identified.
- The differential names what supports and excludes each candidate.
- The discriminating findings from the case are used explicitly.
- Dosages are given for any pharmacologic recommendation.
- The treat-or-refer decision is stated outright.
- The Burns chapter is reviewed and current sources cited.
Use this guide to plan and review your own work. Follow your institution's rules and read our academic-integrity policy.
Written by
Aaron Bishop
MA, Education
assignment interpretation and research-methods coaching across disciplines
Aaron leads the EssayCrackers editorial desk. He works on how assignment briefs are read — what a rubric is actually asking for, and where students most often answer a different question than the one set.
Reviewed by
Dr. Nathan Cole
PhD, Rhetoric & Composition
Argumentation and thesis development
Nathan teaches first-year composition and directs a university writing center. He reviews EssayCrackers guides for argumentative soundness and citation accuracy.