Literature DB >> 23344279

Contamination rates of three urine-sampling methods to assess bacteriuria in pregnant women.

Caroline Schneeberger1, Edwin R van den Heuvel, Jan Jaap H M Erwich, Ronald P Stolk, Caroline E Visser, Suzanne E Geerlings.   

Abstract

OBJECTIVE: To estimate and compare contamination rates of three different urine-sampling methods in pregnant women to assess bacteriuria.
METHODS: In this cross-sectional study, 113 pregnant women collected three different midstream urine samples consecutively: morning (first void); midstream (void without further instructions); and clean-catch sample (void after cleaning). The following end points were considered contaminants: epithelial cells, Gram-positive rods or mixed bacteria in the Gram stain, and mixed growth or skin flora in the urine culture. Intraindividual variability in contaminants was quantified with Fleiss-Cohen's weighted κ statistic. Differences between samples were assessed using generalized estimating equations.
RESULTS: Mainly low numbers of Gram-positive rods were more likely to be present in Gram stains of midstream samples compared with clean-catch samples (77.7% compared with 66.7%, P=.022). Morning samples showed more mixed growth compared with midstream samples (6.2% compared with 0.9%, P=.050). No consistency in quantity of contaminants was found in midstream samples compared with morning and clean-catch samples. No differences were found between the other end points in all three urine samples (P>.05). The study could detect an odds ratios of 2.0 for differences in urine-sampling methods with 80% power and 5% significance for most end points.
CONCLUSION: In pregnant women, the contamination rate of midstream samples is comparable with the contamination rates of morning and clean-catch samples. The quantity of contaminants varied among the three samples collected by one woman. These results show that more complex, unpractical, and time-consuming morning and clean-catch samples are not superior. Therefore, we recommend a midstream sample to assess bacteriuria in pregnant women. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: II.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2013        PMID: 23344279     DOI: 10.1097/AOG.0b013e31827e8cfe

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Obstet Gynecol        ISSN: 0029-7844            Impact factor:   7.661


  4 in total

1.  Maternofetal outcome of asymptomatic bacteriuria among pregnant women in a Nigerian Teaching Hospital.

Authors:  Kenneth Ebele Izuchukwu; Emmanuel Okwudili Oranu; Goddy Bassey; Ngozi Clare Orazulike
Journal:  Pan Afr Med J       Date:  2017-05-30

2.  Urothelial cells may indicate underlying bacteriuria in pregnancy at term: a comparative study.

Authors:  N Liou; J Currie; C James; J Malone-Lee; A L David
Journal:  BMC Pregnancy Childbirth       Date:  2017-12-08       Impact factor: 3.007

3.  Effectiveness of Preanalytic Practices on Contamination and Diagnostic Accuracy of Urine Cultures: a Laboratory Medicine Best Practices Systematic Review and Meta-analysis.

Authors:  Mark T LaRocco; Jacob Franek; Elizabeth K Leibach; Alice S Weissfeld; Colleen S Kraft; Robert L Sautter; Vickie Baselski; Debra Rodahl; Edward J Peterson; Nancy E Cornish
Journal:  Clin Microbiol Rev       Date:  2016-01       Impact factor: 26.132

4.  High false positive rate of white blood cells in urine samples of pregnant women may be caused by epithelial cells being misclassified by the sysmex UF-1000i urine flow cytometer.

Authors:  Wei Yang; Xiaochen Yu; Dan Liu; Xiuru Guan
Journal:  Cytometry B Clin Cytom       Date:  2018-10-10       Impact factor: 3.058

  4 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.