Evidence map›Paper›PMID 34100109›Full record

Observational studyPediatric nephrology (Berlin, Germany)2021

Urine collection methods for infants under 3 months of age in clinical practice.

María Luisa Herreros, Pablo Gili, Rut Del Valle, Ana Barrios, Mónica Pacheco, Aida Sánchez

Registry-linked trialOpen access · greenAbstract readObservational Study
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Observational study in Pediatric nephrology (Berlin, Germany), 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT05416736 (The Effect of Bladder Stimulation Technique on Urine Specimen Collection in Newborns), which is not on this map. Cited by 6 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
6citing papers in PubMed
3.3field-weighted citation impact, top 8% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

NCT05416736 nacompletednot on this map

The Effect of Bladder Stimulation Technique on Urine Specimen Collection in Newborns: A Randomized Controlled Study

TypeinterventionalSponsorIstanbul University - CerrahpasaRan2021 to 2022Enrolled64ConditionsUrine Specimen CollectionArmsThe bladder stimulation technique, Steril urine bag
3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

6 citing papers in PubMed, 13 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Review
  4. Article
  5. Review
  6. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

6 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

María Luisa HerrerosDepartment of Pediatrics, Hospital Universitario Infanta Sofía, San Sebastián de los Reyes, Madrid, Spain. marisaherrerosfernandez@gmail.com.ORCID 0000-0003-4062-3918
Pablo GiliHospital Universitario Fundación Alcorcón, Madrid, Spain.
Rut Del ValleDepartment of Pediatrics, Hospital Universitario Infanta Sofía, San Sebastián de los Reyes, Madrid, Spain.
Ana BarriosDepartment of Pediatrics, Hospital Universitario Infanta Sofía, San Sebastián de los Reyes, Madrid, Spain.
Mónica PachecoDepartment of Pediatrics, Hospital Universitario Infanta Sofía, San Sebastián de los Reyes, Madrid, Spain.
Aida SánchezDepartment of Microbiology, Hospital Universitario Infanta Sofía, San Sebastián de los Reyes, Madrid, Spain.
Hospital Universitario Infanta Sofía · ESHospital Universitario Fundación Alcorcón · ES

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundMethods of urine collection used in precontinent children are a controversial issue. Definitive diagnosis of urinary tract infection (UTI) requires an uncontaminated urine culture. We aimed to describe methods used to collect urine for culture in infants under 3 months of age and compare results and contamination rates.

methodsThis retrospective observational cohort study included 721 urine cultures collected from infants <3 months of age at the Hospital Universitario Infanta Sofía, Madrid, between January 2016 and December 2019. Urine cultures were compared based on collection technique, sex, and patient age.

resultsMedian patient age was 36 days and 54.6% were male. In total, 592 (82.1%) samples were collected using clean-catch urine stimulation technique (CCUST), 77 (10.7%) by urethral catheterization (UC) and 52 (7.2%) by urine bag (UB). Positive cultures were obtained in 11.7% (95% confidence interval [CI] 9.1, 14.3) of CCUST samples and in 28.6% (95% CI 18.5, 38.7) of UC samples (p<0.001). The contamination rate was 13.7% (95% CI 10.9, 16.4] for CCUST, 23.1% (95% CI 11.6, 34.6) for UB and 5.2% (95% CI 0.2, 10.2) for UC, with statistically significant differences (p=0.007) between UB and UC collection.

conclusionsCCUST is the most commonly used method in our hospital for collecting urine in infants younger than 3 months. The contamination rate of UC is lower but not significantly different to that of CCUST. Urine collection by CCUST serves as a non-invasive alternative to UC for diagnosis of UTI in infants under 3 months of age in routine clinical practice. Graphical abstract.

Indexed as

Urinary Tract InfectionsUrine Specimen CollectionFemaleHumansInfantInfant, NewbornMaleRetrospective StudiesSpainUrinalysisUrinary CatheterizationClean-catch urine stimulation techniqueContaminationInfantsPrecontinentUrethral catheterizationUrinary tract infectionUrine bagUrine collection

Identifiers

PMID34100109
OpenAlexW3171425097

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

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.