首页> 外文期刊>Annals of Tropical Paediatrics >Comparison of urine contamination rates using three different methods of collection: clean-catch, cotton wool pad and urine bag.
【24h】

Comparison of urine contamination rates using three different methods of collection: clean-catch, cotton wool pad and urine bag.

机译:使用三种不同的收集方法比较尿液污染率:清洁捕集器,棉垫和尿袋。

获取原文
获取原文并翻译 | 示例
       

摘要

Collecting uncontaminated urine specimens from infants is difficult. Commonly, an adhesive urinecollecting bag is used, which is uncomfortable. This study determined bacterial contamination rates using three methods of urine collection sequentially on the same infant (without known urinary tract infection)-clean-catch, cotton wool (sanitary) pad and urine bag. The study was undertaken in children under 3 years of age in the Institute of Maternal and Child Health of Pernambuco (IMIP), Recife, Brazil. Urine samples were analysed using phase contrast microscopy and routine culture. Culture of bacteria at any level was interpreted as a contaminated urine specimen. Cultures with > 10(5) colony-forming units/ml of one species by all three collection methods were regarded as true urinary tract infection and these children were excluded. Altogether, 534 urine samples from 191 patients were analysed. Median age was 2 months (1 day-36 months) and 124 (65%) were boys. Twelve children (6.3%) were considered to have true urinary tract infection, three were indeterminate and in 16 one or more samples were missing and all were excluded from analysis. There were more missing samples using the clean-catch method (12%) than when using the bag (4%) or pad (4%). Seventy-six of 160 (47.5%) children had evidence of bacterial contamination. Clean-catch specimens showed the least contamination (14.7%) and rates were similar between pads (29%) and bags (26.6%) (kappa = 0.40). Urine contamination rates were similar for sanitary pads and urine bags and significantly higher than for clean-catch (p<0.01). However, pads were a simple, non-invasive and comfortable alternative to bags.
机译:很难收集婴儿的未污染尿液标本。通常,使用粘性的尿液收集袋,这不舒服。这项研究使用三种尿液收集方法依次测定了同一名婴儿(无已知尿路感染)的细菌污染率,即干净卫生,棉绒(卫生)垫和尿袋。这项研究是在巴西累西腓伯南布哥州母婴健康研究所(IMIP)的3岁以下儿童中进行的。使用相差显微镜和常规培养分析尿液样品。任何水平的细菌培养都被解释为受污染的尿液标本。通过所有三种收集方法,每一种物种的菌落形成单位> 10(5)/ ml的培养均被视为真正的尿路感染,这些儿童被排除在外。总共分析了191位患者的534个尿液样本。中位年龄为2个月(1天至36个月),男生124例(65%)。 12名儿童(6.3%)被认为是真正的尿路感染,3名不确定,16名缺少一个或多个样本,所有样本均未分析。与使用袋子(4%)或垫子(4%)相比,使用干净捕集方法的样品丢失率更高(12%)。 160名儿童中有76名(47.5%)有细菌污染的证据。清洁渔获物样本污染最少(14.7%),垫子(29%)和袋子(26.6%)之间的比率相似(kappa = 0.40)。卫生护垫和尿袋的尿液污染率相似,并且显着高于清洁渔获物(p <0.01)。然而,垫是袋的简单,无创且舒适的替代品。

著录项

相似文献

  • 外文文献
  • 中文文献
  • 专利
获取原文

客服邮箱:kefu@zhangqiaokeyan.com

京公网安备:11010802029741号 ICP备案号:京ICP备15016152号-6 六维联合信息科技 (北京) 有限公司©版权所有
  • 客服微信

  • 服务号