Jackson Simon R, Dryden Mathew, Gillett Paul, Kearney Paddy, Weatherall Rosemary
Department of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, John Radcliffe Hospital, Oxford, UK.
BJU Int. 2005 Aug;96(3):360-4. doi: 10.1111/j.1464-410X.2005.05631.x.
To evaluate a novel urine-collection device (UCD) that automatically collects a midstream urine (MSU) sample, and compare contamination rates to those of the conventional MSU sampling method, as the contamination of urine samples for microbiological analysis in women leads to diagnostic ambiguity and unnecessary costs, and may result in part from an incorrect collection procedure.
In all, 2823 women from four centres, most from antenatal clinics, were randomized to two urine-collection methods: conventional MSU collection and collection with a novel MSU UCD (the Whiz, JBOL Ltd, Oxford, UK). Semi-quantitative growth and user acceptability were compared between the collection methods.
MSU samples collected with the UCD had significantly fewer mixed growth samples (9% vs 14%, P = 0.001; 36% relative reduction), significantly fewer heavy mixed growth samples (1.2% vs 3.0%, P = 0.004; 60% relative reduction) and required significantly fewer re-tests (11% vs 16%, P = 0.002; 31% relative reduction). There were more samples with clinically insignificant growth than the conventional MSU group (86% vs 82%, P = 0.005). Those using the UCD preferred it to the conventional method (67.5%) and experienced significantly less spillage during sample collection (27% vs 46%, P = 0.001; relative reduction 41%).
The UCD reduced contamination rates in urine samples and improved the predictive value of the urine culture in a manner acceptable to patients and staff.
评估一种新型尿液收集装置(UCD),该装置可自动收集清洁中段尿(MSU)样本,并将污染率与传统MSU采样方法的污染率进行比较,因为女性尿液样本用于微生物分析时的污染会导致诊断不明确和不必要的费用,且部分可能是由于采集程序不正确所致。
来自四个中心的2823名女性(大多数来自产前诊所)被随机分为两种尿液收集方法:传统MSU收集和使用新型MSU UCD(Whiz,JBOL有限公司,英国牛津)收集。比较了两种收集方法之间的半定量生长情况和用户接受度。
使用UCD收集的MSU样本中,混合生长样本显著减少(9%对14%,P = 0.001;相对减少36%),重度混合生长样本显著减少(1.2%对3.0%,P = 0.004;相对减少60%),重新检测的样本显著减少(11%对16%,P = 0.002;相对减少31%)。与传统MSU组相比,临床意义不显著生长的样本更多(86%对82%,P = 0.005)。使用UCD的人比传统方法更喜欢它(67.5%),并且在样本收集过程中溢出明显更少(27%对46%,P = 0.001;相对减少41%)。
UCD降低了尿液样本的污染率,并以患者和工作人员可接受的方式提高了尿培养的预测价值。