BACKGROUND: Voided urinalysis to test for urinary tract infection (UTI) is prone to false-positive results for a number of reasons. Specimens are often collected at triage from women with any abdominal complaint, creating a low UTI prevalence population. Improper collection technique by the patient may affect the result. At least four indices, if positive, can indicate UTI. OBJECTIVE: We examine the impact of voided specimen collection technique on urinalysis indicators of UTI and on urine culture contamination in disease-free women. METHODS: In this crossover design, 40 menstrual-age female emergency department staff without UTI symptoms collected urine two ways: directly in a cup ("non-clean") and midstream clean catch ("ideal"). Samples underwent standard automated urinalysis and culture. Urinalysis indices and culture contamination were compared. RESULTS: The proportion of abnormal results from samples collected by "non-clean" vs. "ideal" technique, respectively, were: leukocyte esterase (>trace) 50%, 35% (95% confidence interval for difference -6% to 36%); nitrites (any) 2.5%, 2.5% (difference -2.5 to 2.5%); white blood cells (>5/high-powered field [HPF]) 50%, 27.5% (difference 4 to 41%); bacteria (any/HPF) 77.5%, 62.5%, (difference -7 to 37%); epithelial cells (>few) 65%, 30% (difference 13 to 56%); culture contamination (>1000 colony-forming units of commensal or >2 species) 77%, 63% (difference -5 to 35%). No urinalysis index was positively correlated with culture contamination. CONCLUSION: Contemporary automated urinalysis indices were often abnormal in a disease-free population of women, even using ideal collection technique. In clinical practice, such false-positive results could lead to false-positive UTI diagnosis. Only urine nitrite showed a high specificity. Culture contamination was common regardless of collection technique and was not predicted by urinalysis results.
BACKGROUND: Voided urinalysis to test for urinary tract infection (UTI) is prone to false-positive results for a number of reasons. Specimens are often collected at triage from women with any abdominal complaint, creating a low UTI prevalence population. Improper collection technique by the patient may affect the result. At least four indices, if positive, can indicate UTI. OBJECTIVE: We examine the impact of voided specimen collection technique on urinalysis indicators of UTI and on urine culture contamination in disease-free women. METHODS: In this crossover design, 40 menstrual-age female emergency department staff without UTI symptoms collected urine two ways: directly in a cup ("non-clean") and midstream clean catch ("ideal"). Samples underwent standard automated urinalysis and culture. Urinalysis indices and culture contamination were compared. RESULTS: The proportion of abnormal results from samples collected by "non-clean" vs. "ideal" technique, respectively, were: leukocyte esterase (>trace) 50%, 35% (95% confidence interval for difference -6% to 36%); nitrites (any) 2.5%, 2.5% (difference -2.5 to 2.5%); white blood cells (>5/high-powered field [HPF]) 50%, 27.5% (difference 4 to 41%); bacteria (any/HPF) 77.5%, 62.5%, (difference -7 to 37%); epithelial cells (>few) 65%, 30% (difference 13 to 56%); culture contamination (>1000 colony-forming units of commensal or >2 species) 77%, 63% (difference -5 to 35%). No urinalysis index was positively correlated with culture contamination. CONCLUSION: Contemporary automated urinalysis indices were often abnormal in a disease-free population of women, even using ideal collection technique. In clinical practice, such false-positive results could lead to false-positive UTI diagnosis. Only urine nitrite showed a high specificity. Culture contamination was common regardless of collection technique and was not predicted by urinalysis results.
Authors: Patrick Whelan; Alicia Nelson; Christopher J Kim; Christian Tabib; Glenn Preminger; Nicholas A Turner; Michael Lipkin; Sonali D Advani Journal: Antimicrob Steward Healthc Epidemiol Date: 2022-02-18
Authors: Martin Müller; Nadine Sägesser; Peter M Keller; Spyridon Arampatzis; Benedict Steffens; Simone Ehrhard; Alexander B Leichtle Journal: Diagnostics (Basel) Date: 2022-04-16
Authors: Martin Müller; Ruth Seidenberg; Sabine K Schuh; Aristomenis K Exadaktylos; Clyde B Schechter; Alexander B Leichtle; Wolf E Hautz Journal: PLoS One Date: 2018-02-23 Impact factor: 3.240