Skip to main page content
Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
Review
, 17, 72

Urine Sampling Techniques in Symptomatic Primary-Care Patients: A Diagnostic Accuracy Review

Affiliations
Review

Urine Sampling Techniques in Symptomatic Primary-Care Patients: A Diagnostic Accuracy Review

Anne Holm et al. BMC Fam Pract.

Abstract

Background: Choice of urine sampling technique in urinary tract infection may impact diagnostic accuracy and thus lead to possible over- or undertreatment. Currently no evidencebased consensus exists regarding correct sampling technique of urine from women with symptoms of urinary tract infection in primary care. The aim of this study was to determine the accuracy of urine culture from different sampling-techniques in symptomatic non-pregnant women in primary care.

Methods: A systematic review was conducted by searching Medline and Embase for clinical studies conducted in primary care using a randomized or paired design to compare the result of urine culture obtained with two or more collection techniques in adult, female, non-pregnant patients with symptoms of urinary tract infection. We evaluated quality of the studies and compared accuracy based on dichotomized outcomes.

Results: We included seven studies investigating urine sampling technique in 1062 symptomatic patients in primary care. Mid-stream-clean-catch had a positive predictive value of 0.79 to 0.95 and a negative predictive value close to 1 compared to sterile techniques. Two randomized controlled trials found no difference in infection rate between mid-stream-clean-catch, mid-stream-urine and random samples.

Conclusions: At present, no evidence suggests that sampling technique affects the accuracy of the microbiological diagnosis in non-pregnant women with symptoms of urinary tract infection in primary care. However, the evidence presented is in-direct and the difference between mid-stream-clean-catch, mid-stream-urine and random samples remains to be investigated in a paired design to verify the present findings.

Keywords: “General practice” [Mesh]; “Primary health care” [Mesh]; “Urinary tract infections” [Mesh]; “Urine specimen collection” [Mesh]; “Urine” [Mesh], “Specimen handling” [Mesh].

Figures

Fig. 1
Fig. 1
Short legend: data collection

Similar articles

See all similar articles

Cited by 5 articles

References

    1. Forskningsenheden for Almen Praksis Aarhus Universitet, Afdeling for Almen Medicin Aarhus Universitet: Kontakt- Og Sygdomsmønsterundersøgelse KOS 2008. 2008.
    1. Lifshitz E, Kramer L. Outpatient urine culture: does collection technique matter? Arch Intern Med. 2000;160:2537–2540. doi: 10.1001/archinte.160.16.2537. - DOI - PubMed
    1. Jaffe JS. Collection of urine for culture. N Engl J Med. 1994;331:617–618. - PubMed
    1. Payton S. Infection: Utility of midstream urine cultures questioned. Nat Rev Urol. 2013;11:3–3. doi: 10.1038/nrurol.2013.287. - DOI - PubMed
    1. Smith G. Diagnosis of coliform infection in acutely dysuric women. N Engl J Med. 1983;309:1393–1394. - PubMed
Feedback