Objective: To evaluate the accuracy of urine sample collection methods among children suspected of having urinary tract infections. Subjects and Methods: Four methods for urine sample collection were evaluated in 1,067 children aged 0–16 years with suspected urinary tract infections over 2 months at Dr. Sami Ulus Children’s Hospital. Within 30 min of collection, all specimens were sent to the laboratory, refrigerated and processed according to standard hospital microbiological procedures. Urine samples were analyzed using routine culture techniques. Results: At initial sending of the urine culture, 617 (57.8%) had negative culture results, 145 (13.6%) had positive culture results, and 305 (28.6%) had evidence of bacterial contamination. Clean catch specimens showed a contamination rate of 14.3% and urethral catheterization specimens showed a similar contamination rate (14.3%). However, urethral catheterization was preferred in only a small number of cases (n = 7). Suprapubic aspiration was also used in a small number of cases (n: 11) and the contamination rate for suprapubic aspiration was 9.1% (n: 1/11). The contamination rate for sterile urine bag was 43.9%, significantly higher than the other methods (p < 0.001). Conclusion: Suprapubic aspiration showed the lowest contamination rate and sterile urine bag showed the highest contamination rate among 4 methods of urine sample collection. Contaminated specimens, needed to be repeated and this procedure increased the cost of urine culture. In conclusion, measures should be taken to reduce the contamination rate in our center. This is an area where further investigation is required.

This content is only available via PDF.
Copyright / Drug Dosage / Disclaimer
Copyright: All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be translated into other languages, reproduced or utilized in any form or by any means, electronic or mechanical, including photocopying, recording, microcopying, or by any information storage and retrieval system, without permission in writing from the publisher.
Drug Dosage: The authors and the publisher have exerted every effort to ensure that drug selection and dosage set forth in this text are in accord with current recommendations and practice at the time of publication. However, in view of ongoing research, changes in government regulations, and the constant flow of information relating to drug therapy and drug reactions, the reader is urged to check the package insert for each drug for any changes in indications and dosage and for added warnings and precautions. This is particularly important when the recommended agent is a new and/or infrequently employed drug.
Disclaimer: The statements, opinions and data contained in this publication are solely those of the individual authors and contributors and not of the publishers and the editor(s). The appearance of advertisements or/and product references in the publication is not a warranty, endorsement, or approval of the products or services advertised or of their effectiveness, quality or safety. The publisher and the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to persons or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content or advertisements.