Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
Clinical Trial
. 2004 Feb 28;33(3):140-4.
doi: 10.1016/s0212-6567(04)79374-9.

[Is the technique used to collect urine important in avoiding contamination of samples?]

[Article in Spanish]
V R Cabedo García  1 , C Novoa Gómez, M D Tirado Balaguer, N Rodríguez Morquecho, M T Rodríguez Bailo, A Solá Sandtner
Affiliations
Clinical Trial

[Is the technique used to collect urine important in avoiding contamination of samples?]

[Article in Spanish]
V R Cabedo García et al. Aten Primaria. .

Abstract
in English, Spanish

Objective: To appraise the efficacy of hygienic standards in preventing the contamination of urine samples.

Design: Randomised clinical trial. 515 women assigned at random: 279 to the Intervention group and 236 to Control.

Setting: Population registered with 4 doctors at 2 health centres.

Participants: Women from 15 to 65 who attended the clinic for on-demand care. Criteria for exclusion from the trial were: permanent bladder catheter, anomalies in genito-urinary apparatus, antibiotic treatment in the 7 previous days and inability to understand instructions.

Intervention: Verbal instructions on hygienic standards for collecting the sample and explanatory leaflet, as against the customary guidelines.

Main measurements: The main result was the combination of contamination levels and infection. Analysis by intention to treat.

Results: Irregularities in the urine culture in 113 (41%) patients from the Intervention group and in 133 (56%) from the Control group (P<.001), with RRR of 28% (95% CI, 14%-40%) and NNT of 6 (95% CI, 4-14). Taking only serious contamination or urinary infection, we had 14 in the Intervention group and 36 in the Control (P<.0001), with RRR of 67% (95% CI, 41%-82%) and NNT of 10 (95% CI, 6-20).

Conclusions: Providing an explanatory leaflet and giving verbal instructions on hygienic standards for urine collection reduces contamination of the samples.

Objetivo: Valorar la eficacia de las normas higiénicas para prevenir la contaminación de las muestras de orina.

Diseño: Ensayo clínico aleatorizado.

Población: Un total de 515 mujeres asignadas aleatoriamente: 279 al grupo de intervención y 236 al de control.

Emplazamiento: Población adscrita a 4 médicos de 2 centros de salud.

Participantes: Mujeres de 15-65 años que acudían a la consulta a demanda por cualquier motivo. Los criterios de exclusión fueron: sondaje vesical permanente, anomalías en el aparato genitourinario, tratamiento antibiótico en los 7 días previos e incapacidad para comprender las instrucciones.

Intervención: Instrucciones verbales de las normas higiénicas para la recogida de la muestra y folleto explicativo, frente a la pauta habitual.

Mediciones principales: El resultado principal fue la combinacion de los niveles de contaminación e infección. Análisis por intención de tratar.

Resultados: Alteraciones en el urocultivo en 113 (41%) pacientes del grupo de intervención y en 133 (56%) del grupo control (p < 0,001) con RRR del 28% (IC del 95%, 14-40) y NNT de 6 (IC del 95%, 4-14). Valorando únicamente la contaminación grave o infección urinaria obteníamos 14 casos en el grupo de intervención y 36 en el de control (p < 0,0001), una RRR del 67% (IC del 95%, 41-82%) y un NNT de 10 (IC del 95%, 6-20).

Conclusiones: Facilitar un folleto explicativo junto con instrucciones verbales sobre las normas higiénicas de recogida de la orina disminuye la contaminación de las muestras.

PubMed Disclaimer

Comment in

Similar articles

See all similar articles

Cited by

References

    1. Schleupner C.J. Urinary tract infections. Separating the genders and the ages. Postgrad Med. 1997;101:231–237. - PubMed
    1. Hooton T.M., Scholes D., Hughes J.P. A prospective study of risk factors for symptomatic urinary tract infection in young women. N Engl J Med. 1996;335:468–474. - PubMed
    1. Piñero Acin M.J., Martínez Matías M.R., Cordoba Gutiérrez M.J., Sánchez Rojas T., López Juárez D., Rodríguez Alcalá F.J. ¿Modifican nuestra actitud terapéutica los urocultivos? Aten Primaria. 2000;26:459–463. - PMC - PubMed
    1. Boswell B.R., Sanford J.P. A screening method for the evaluation of urinary tract infections in female patients without catheterization. Ann Intern Med. 1958;48:1040–1046. - PubMed
    1. Walter F.G., Knopp R.K. Urine sampling in ambulatory women: midstream clean-catch versus catheterization. Ann Emerg Med. 1989;18:166–172. - PubMed