E Lifshitz1, L Kramer. 1. Rutgers University Health Services, University of Medicine and Dentistry of New Jersey-Robert Wood Johnson Medical School, New Brunswick, NJ, USA.
Abstract
BACKGROUND:Dysuria is one of the most common presenting complaints of young women, and urinalysis is one of the most common laboratory tests performed. Despite the fact that the midstream clean-catch technique is commonly used for urine collection, contaminated urine cultures occur with distressing regularity. The midstream clean-catch technique is time-consuming to explain, frequently not performed correctly by patients, costly for supplies, often embarrassing for patients and staff, and of unproven benefit. Therefore, we designed a study to compare various methods of obtaining specimens for culture from acutely dysuric young women. METHODS: A total of 242 consecutive female patients who presented with symptoms suggestive of a urinary tract infection were randomized into 3 groups. The first group (n = 77) was instructed to urinate into a clean container. No cleansing was done, and the specimen was not obtained midstream. The second group (n = 84) was instructed to collect a midstream urine sample with perineal cleansing and spreading of the labia. In an attempt to decrease contamination from the vagina, the third group (n = 81) was given the same instructions as group 2, with the addition of using a vaginal tampon. Contamination rates were calculated for all 3 groups. RESULTS:Contamination rates for the 3 groups were nearly identical (29%, 32%, and 31%, respectively). Comparing the no-cleansing group with the combined cleansing, midstream groups also showed no difference in contamination rates (28.6% and 31.5%, respectively, with P =.65). CONCLUSIONS:In young, outpatient women with symptoms suggestive of a urinary tract infection, the midstream clean-catch technique does not decrease contamination rates.
RCT Entities:
BACKGROUND: Dysuria is one of the most common presenting complaints of young women, and urinalysis is one of the most common laboratory tests performed. Despite the fact that the midstream clean-catch technique is commonly used for urine collection, contaminated urine cultures occur with distressing regularity. The midstream clean-catch technique is time-consuming to explain, frequently not performed correctly by patients, costly for supplies, often embarrassing for patients and staff, and of unproven benefit. Therefore, we designed a study to compare various methods of obtaining specimens for culture from acutely dysuric young women. METHODS: A total of 242 consecutive female patients who presented with symptoms suggestive of a urinary tract infection were randomized into 3 groups. The first group (n = 77) was instructed to urinate into a clean container. No cleansing was done, and the specimen was not obtained midstream. The second group (n = 84) was instructed to collect a midstream urine sample with perineal cleansing and spreading of the labia. In an attempt to decrease contamination from the vagina, the third group (n = 81) was given the same instructions as group 2, with the addition of using a vaginal tampon. Contamination rates were calculated for all 3 groups. RESULTS: Contamination rates for the 3 groups were nearly identical (29%, 32%, and 31%, respectively). Comparing the no-cleansing group with the combined cleansing, midstream groups also showed no difference in contamination rates (28.6% and 31.5%, respectively, with P =.65). CONCLUSIONS: In young, outpatientwomen with symptoms suggestive of a urinary tract infection, the midstream clean-catch technique does not decrease contamination rates.
Authors: W S Smellie; J O Forth; C A M McNulty; L Hirschowitz; D Lilic; R Gosling; D Bareford; E Logan; K G Kerr; G P Spickett; J Hoffman; A Galloway; C A Bloxham Journal: J Clin Pathol Date: 2006-02 Impact factor: 3.411
Authors: Elizabeth Southworth; Baylie Hochstedler; Travis K Price; Cara Joyce; Alan J Wolfe; Elizabeth R Mueller Journal: Female Pelvic Med Reconstr Surg Date: 2019 Mar/Apr Impact factor: 2.091
Authors: Bart J Knottnerus; Suzanne E Geerlings; Eric P Moll van Charante; Gerben Ter Riet Journal: Ann Fam Med Date: 2013 Sep-Oct Impact factor: 5.166
Authors: Richard S Lee; Flavio Monigatti; Andrew C Briscoe; Zachary Waldon; Michael R Freeman; Hanno Steen Journal: J Proteome Res Date: 2008-07-29 Impact factor: 4.466