Best methods for urine sample collection for diagnostic accuracy in women with urinary tract infection symptoms: a systematic review

Author:

Llor Carl123ORCID,Moragas Ana24ORCID,Aguilar-Sánchez Mercedes5,García-Sangenís Ana26ORCID,Monfà Ramon26ORCID,Morros Rosa267ORCID

Affiliation:

1. Department of Public Health, General Practice, University of Southern Denmark , Odense , Denmark

2. University Institute in Primary Care Research Jordi Gol , CIBER de Enfermedades Infecciosas, Barcelona , Spain

3. Via Roma Health Centre, Catalan Institute of Health , Barcelona , Spain

4. Universitat Rovira i Virgili. Jaume I Health Centre, Catalan Institute of Health , Tarragona , Spain

5. Microbiology Department, Hospital Universitari de Bellvitge , L’Hospitalet de Llobregat , Spain

6. Medicines Research Unit, Institut de Recerca en Atenció Primària Jordi Gol , Barcelona, Catalonia , Spain

7. Departament de Farmacologia i Terapèutica, Universitat Autònoma de Barcelona , Bellaterra, Cerdanyola del Vallès , Spain

Abstract

Abstract Background Most guidelines recommend a midstream urine (MSU) or a midstream clean-catch (MSCC) sample for urinalysis. However, whether this sample is better than others is still controversial. Objectives To assess the most adequate non-invasive method to collect a urine specimen for diagnosing urinary tract infections (UTI) in symptomatic non-pregnant women. Methods This review was conducted according to the Systematic Reviews of Diagnostic Test Accuracy guidelines (PROSPERO CRD42021241758). PubMed was searched paired sample studies and controlled trials. Studies comparing MSCC, MSU without cleaning, first-void urine, and random voiding samples were considered. Studies evaluating invasive methods were excluded. The main outcome was diagnostic accuracy of urine cultures. Contamination rates were evaluated. The risk of bias tool for systematic reviews on diagnostic accuracy (QUADAS-2) was assessed. Results Six studies including 1,010 patients were evaluated. Only two studies used paired samples. No study was considered as having low risk of bias. There was no difference in contamination for MSU specimens collected with or without cleansing and between random void urine collection and MSCC. In one study comparing first-void urine with MSU samples, the contamination rate was lower in the latter, but the gold standard of urine culture was only used for one sampling collection. Conclusions To the best of our knowledge, this systematic review is the first to assess the evidence available from different exclusively non-invasive urine sampling. Despite being widely recommended, our review did not find consistent evidence that asking women to provide midstream samples with or without cleansing is better.

Publisher

Oxford University Press (OUP)

Subject

Family Practice

Cited by 3 articles. 订阅此论文施引文献 订阅此论文施引文献,注册后可以免费订阅5篇论文的施引文献,订阅后可以查看论文全部施引文献

1. YELLOW RoUTIne prospective cohort study protocol: insight in the dynamics of bacteria in the elderly bladder;BMC Infectious Diseases;2024-08-30

2. Urinalysis and culture results of free‐catch urine samples in dogs: a randomised controlled trial;Journal of Small Animal Practice;2024-04-15

3. Urine sample collection and handling;Reference Module in Chemistry, Molecular Sciences and Chemical Engineering;2024

同舟云学术

1.学者识别学者识别

2.学术分析学术分析

3.人才评估人才评估

"同舟云学术"是以全球学者为主线,采集、加工和组织学术论文而形成的新型学术文献查询和分析系统,可以对全球学者进行文献检索和人才价值评估。用户可以通过关注某些学科领域的顶尖人物而持续追踪该领域的学科进展和研究前沿。经过近期的数据扩容,当前同舟云学术共收录了国内外主流学术期刊6万余种,收集的期刊论文及会议论文总量共计约1.5亿篇,并以每天添加12000余篇中外论文的速度递增。我们也可以为用户提供个性化、定制化的学者数据。欢迎来电咨询!咨询电话:010-8811{复制后删除}0370

www.globalauthorid.com

TOP

Copyright © 2019-2024 北京同舟云网络信息技术有限公司
京公网安备11010802033243号  京ICP备18003416号-3