ArticleEJIFCC2020
Impact of chemical preservative in urine samples.
Article in EJIFCC, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.
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
2 citing papers in PubMed, 6 citations in OpenAlex.
- Influence of different urine preservation methods and addition of preservatives on quantitative detection of 24-h urinary protein.Frontiers in medicine · 2025Article
- BD Vacutainer™ Urine Culture & Sensitivity Preservative PLUS Plastic Tubes Minimize the Harmful Impact of Stressors Dependent on Temperature and Time Storage in Uropathogenic Bacteria.Journal of clinical medicine · 2024Article
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 at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Urinalysis is one of the most important tests in the clinical laboratory. In this study we assessed the use of chemical preservative in urinalysis during preanalytical phase. Fifty first morning urine samples from medical laboratory patients were collected and stored with and without chemical preservative. Difference between medians were analyzed using Wilcoxon signed rank test for glucose, bilirubin, ketones, specific gravity, erythrocytes, pH, proteins, nitrites, leukocytes using urine strips; and on leukocytes, erythrocytes, epithelial cells, and bacteria in the urinary sediment, at 90 minutes after sampling. Our results showed that the specific gravity and the pH values increased in samples with chemical preservative in urine strip tests. Concerning urinary sediment analysis no differences were observed in the studied parameters between samples with and without chemical preservative. We suggest that the effect on urine pH is due to the chemical nature of the substances in the preservative. Thus, we caution about the use of chemical preservatives in samples to be analyzed within short time (i.e. less than 1.5 - 2 hours) after sample collection. Avoid chemical preservatives, in this situation, could help avoid changes in the pH and specific gravity, which could eventually help in maintaining quality in the preanalytical phase of urinalysis.
Indexed as
Identifiers
32256289PMC7109501W3014702989What 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.