Urine culture contamination : A College Of American Pathologists Q-Probes study of 127 laboratories

Archives of Pathology and Laboratory Medicine

Volumn 132, Issue 6, 2008, Pages 913-917

  Bekeris, Leonas C ^a   Jones, Bruce Allen ^b   Walsh, Molly K ^c   Wagar, Elizabeth A ^d  

^a Phoenixville Hospital   (United States)

^b HENRY FORD HEALTH SYSTEM   (United States)

^c Molecular Pathology Division   (United States)

^d UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

ADULT; ARTICLE; COLONY FORMING UNIT; DEMOGRAPHY; EMERGENCY WARD; FEMALE; FREEZING; HUMAN; LABORATORY; MALE; MICROBIAL CONTAMINATION; NONHUMAN; PROSPECTIVE STUDY; QUESTIONNAIRE; URINE CULTURE; HOSPITAL LABORATORY; LABORATORY DIAGNOSIS; METHODOLOGY; MICROBIOLOGY; QUALITY CONTROL; STANDARD; URINALYSIS; URINE;

FEMALE; HUMANS; LABORATORIES, HOSPITAL; MALE; QUALITY CONTROL; SPECIMEN HANDLING; URINALYSIS; URINE;

EID: 45549098858     PISSN: 00039985     EISSN: 15432165     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: None     Document Type: Article

References (15)

1. Valenstein P, Meir F. Urine culture contamination: a College of American Pathologists Q-Probes study of contaminated urine cultures in 906 institutions. Arch Pathol Lab Med. 1998;122:123-129.
2. Sodeman TM. A practical strategy for diagnosis of urinary tract infections. Clin Lab Med. 1995;15:235-249.
3. Schofield CB. Preventing errors in the microbiology lab. MLO Med Lab Obs. 2006;38:10-18.
4. Gutierrez J, Rodriguez M, Morales P, Piedrola G. The importance of risk of urine specimen's contamination in the diagnosis of urinary tract infection in a level 3 hospital. Rev Invest Clin. 2000;52:581-583.
5. Leisure MK, Dudley SM, Donowitz LG. Does a clean-catch urine sample reduce bacterial contamination? N Engl J Med. 1993;328:289-290.
6. Jackson SR, Dryden M, Gillett P, Kearney P, Weatherall R. A novel midstream urine-collection device reduces contamination rates in urine cultures amongst women. BJU International. 2005;96:360-364.
7. Cabedo Garcia VR, Novoa Gomez C, Tirado Balaguer MD, Rodriguez Mor-quecho N, Rodriguez Bailo MT, Sola Sandtner A. Is the technique used to collect urine important in avoiding contamination of the samples? Aten Primaria. 2004; 33:140-144.
8. Fisher LA, Johnson TS, Porter D, Bleich HL, Slack WV. Collection of a clean voided urine specimen: a comparison among spoken, written, and computer-based instructions. Am J Public Health. 1977;67:640-644.
9. Lifshitz E, Kramer L. Outpatient urine culture: does collection technique matter? Arch intern Med. 2000;160:2537-2540.
10. Saenz-Llorens X, Umana MA, Odio CM, Lohr JA. Bacterial contamination rates for non-clean catch and clean-catch midstream urine collections in uncircumcised boys. J Pediatr. 1989;114:93-95.
11. Chua AT, Arceo E, Peňa A. Comparison of initial versus midstream voided urine for urine culture among men. Phil j Microbiol Infect Dis. 1988;17:22-24.
12. Blake DR, Doherty LF. Effect of perineal cleansing on contamination rate of mid-stream urine culture. J Pediatr Adolesc Gynecol. 2006;19:31-34.
13. Immergut MA, Gilbert EC, Frensilli FJ, Goble M. The myth of the clean catch urine specimen. Urology. 1981;17:339-340.
14. Prandoni D, Boone MH, Larson E, Blane CG, Fitzpatrick H. Assessment of urine collection technique for microbial culture. Am J infect Control. 1996;24: 219-221.
15. Lipsky BA, Inui TS. "The best laid plans. . . ": an evaluation of a patient education program. Med Care. 1983;21:655-660.