Evaluation of urine collection methods for the diagnosis of urinary tract infection in children.
Author(s): Karacan C, Erkek N, Senel S, Akin Gunduz S, Catli G, Tavil B
Publication: Med Princ Pract, 2010, Vol. 19, Page 188-91
PubMed ID: 20357500 PubMed Review Paper? No
Purpose of Paper
This paper compared contamination rates in bag, clean-catch, suprapubic aspiration (SPA), and catheter urine from 1067 children with suspected urinary tract infection (UTI).
Conclusion of Paper
The contamination rate was 14.3% in both clean-catch and catheter collected specimens and 9.1% for SPA specimens, but was significantly higher for bag specimens at 43.9% (P<0.001). However, catheter and SPA were only used for 7 and 11 specimens, respectively.
Studies
-
Study Purpose
This study compared contamination rates in bag, clean-catch, suprapubic aspiration (SPA), and catheter urine from 1067 children with suspected urinary tract infection (UTI). Urine specimens were collected in sterile urine bags (517 patients), by clean-catch (532 patients), by SPA (11 patients), or by catheter (7 patients). Trained nurses conducted perineal cleansing and attached the sterile urine bags, but if fecal contamination occurred, the parents redid the cleansing and bag placement. Clean-catch urine was collected by parents into sterile containers. SPA and catheter specimens were obtained by trained personnel using sterile techniques. Specimens were taken to the laboratory within 30 min and cultures were inoculated. Using the Clinical Laboratory Standards Institute (CLSI) guidelines, a positive culture was defined as more than 105 cfu/mL in bag or clean-catch specimens, more than 104 cfu/mL in catheter specimens, and any growth in SPA specimens. The definition of contaminated was not provided.
Summary of Findings:
Initial culture results were positive for 145 specimens, negative for 617 specimens, and contaminated for 305 specimens. The contamination rate was 14.3% in both clean-catch and catheter collected specimens and 9.1% for SPA specimens, but was significantly higher for bag specimens at 43.9% (P<0.001). However, catheter and SPA were only used for 7 and 11 specimens, respectively.
Biospecimens
Preservative Types
- None (Fresh)
Diagnoses:
- Other diagnoses
Platform:
Analyte Technology Platform Cell count/volume Microbiological assay Pre-analytical Factors:
Classification Pre-analytical Factor Value(s) Biospecimen Acquisition Method of fluid acquisition Catheterized urine
Different urine collection procedures compared
Voided urine (24-h collection)
Needle