Do Urine Collection Techniques Affect Contamination? | ||||
| Journal of High Institute of Public Health | ||||
| Article 5, Volume 35, Issue 1, January 2005, Page 55-66 | ||||
| Document Type: Original Article | ||||
| DOI: 10.21608/jhiph.2005.179521 | ||||
 View on SCiNiTO | ||||
| Authors | ||||
| Laila Al-Attar; Wafaa M K. Bakr; Randa Abd Al-Aleem | ||||
| Microbiology Department, High Institute of Public Health, Alexandria University, Egypt | ||||
| Abstract | ||||
| The aim of the microbiology laboratory in the management of urinary tract infection [UTI] is to reduce morbidity and mortality through accurate and timely diagnosis with appropriate antimicrobial sensitivity testing. Although optimal specimen collection, processing, and interpretation should provide the clinician with a precise answer, no single evaluation method is fool proof and applicable to all patient groups. So this study aimed at validating 3 different urine sampling techniques, clean catch midstream [CCMS], midstream [MS], and nothing techniques, regarding bacterial contamination. The study involved 300 urine samples taken from females, who were attending either the out patients clinics at the Main University Hospital or the Sporting Students Hospital in Alexandria. All urine samples were subjected to quantitative and qualitative cultures on blood agar and MacConkey’s agar. Contamination was found in 66% of the studied specimens. CCMS, MS, and nothing techniques have approximately identical contamination rates and the difference between their results were not statistically significant [76%, 80%, and 90%, respectively]. It can be recommended that midstream or nothing techniques could be used in collection urine specimens instead of the tedious CCMS. | ||||
| Keywords | ||||
| Urine Collection Techniques; Contamination | ||||
|
Statistics Article View: 88 |
||||
