Collins, L;
Sathiananthamoorthy, S;
Rohn, J;
Malone-Lee, J;
(2020)
A revalidation and critique of assumptions about urinary sample collection methods, specimen quality and contamination.
International Urogynecology Journal
10.1007/s00192-020-04272-x.
(In press).
Preview |
Text
Collins2020_Article_ARevalidationAndCritiqueOfAssu.pdf - Published Version Download (450kB) | Preview |
Abstract
INTRODUCTION AND HYPOTHESIS Midstream urine (MSU) is key in assessing lower urinary tract syndrome (LUTS), but contingent on some assumptions. The aim of this study was to compare the occurrence of contamination and the quality of substrates obtained from four different collections: MSU, catheter specimen urine (CSU), a commercial MSU collecting device (Peezy) and a natural void. Contamination was quantified by differential, uroplakin-positive, urothelial cell counts. METHODS This was a single blind, crossover study conducted in two phases. First, we compared the MSU with CSU using urine culture, pyuria counts and differential counting of epithelial cells after immunofluorescence staining for uroplakin III (UP3). Second, we compared the three non-invasive (MSU, Peezy MSU™, natural void) methods using UP3 antibody staining only. RESULTS The natural void was best at collecting bladder urinary sediment, with the majority of epithelial cells present derived from the urinary tract. CSU sampling missed much of the urinary sediment and showed sparse culture results. Finally, the MSU collection methods did not capture much of the bladder sediment. CONCLUSION We found little evidence for contamination with the four methods. Natural void was the best method for harvesting shed urothelial cells and white blood cells. It provides a richer sample of the inflammatory exudate, including parasitised urothelial cells and the microbial substrate. However, if the midstream sample is believed to be important, the MSU collection device is advantageous.
| Type: | Article |
|---|---|
| Title: | A revalidation and critique of assumptions about urinary sample collection methods, specimen quality and contamination |
| Location: | England |
| Open access status: | An open access version is available from UCL Discovery |
| DOI: | 10.1007/s00192-020-04272-x |
| Publisher version: | https://doi.org/10.1007/s00192-020-04272-x |
| Language: | English |
| Additional information: | This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/. |
| Keywords: | Catheter, Midstream, Peezy, Sample, UTI, Urine |
| UCL classification: | UCL UCL > Provost and Vice Provost Offices > School of Life and Medical Sciences UCL > Provost and Vice Provost Offices > School of Life and Medical Sciences > Faculty of Medical Sciences UCL > Provost and Vice Provost Offices > School of Life and Medical Sciences > Faculty of Medical Sciences > Div of Medicine UCL > Provost and Vice Provost Offices > School of Life and Medical Sciences > Faculty of Medical Sciences > Div of Medicine > Renal Medicine |
| URI: | https://discovery.ucl.ac.uk/id/eprint/10093264 |
Loading...
Loading...Loading...Loading...Archive Staff Only
 |
View Item |
