ArticleInternational urogynecology journal2020
A revalidation and critique of assumptions about urinary sample collection methods, specimen quality and contamination.
Article in International urogynecology journal, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Novel Techniques to Unravel Causative Bacterial Ecological Shifts in Chronic Urinary Tract Infection.Pathogens (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introduction and hypothesisMidstream 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.
methodsThis 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.
resultsThe 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.
conclusionWe 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.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.