What is the best way to collect urine from neonates? Comparison of the success rate and volume using different methods in a repeated measures design.

Jochen Kittel, Alexandra Peiper, Michael Melter, Susanne Brandstetter

Abstract readComparative Study

In one paragraph

Article in BMC research notes, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it

0cells of the map it votes in

0citing papers in PubMed

–field-weighted citation impact

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.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

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

4 authors.

Jochen KittelChildren's Hospital (KUNOClinics), Hospital St. Hedwig of the Order of St. John, University of Regensburg, Regensburg, Germany. jochen.kittel@barmherzige-regensburg.de.

Alexandra PeiperDepartment of Otolaryngology, Head and Neck Surgery, University Hospital Augsburg, Augsburg, Germany.

Michael MelterChildren's Hospital (KUNOClinics), Hospital St. Hedwig of the Order of St. John, University of Regensburg, Regensburg, Germany.

Susanne BrandstetterChildren's Hospital (KUNOClinics), Hospital St. Hedwig of the Order of St. John, University of Regensburg, Regensburg, Germany.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectiveUrine collection from neonates can be difficult. We therefore designed a study to compare success rates and effectiveness of different urine collection methods in neonates.

resultsUrine collection by compress and by sponge methods were unsuccessful and not further evaluated. Data was obtained from 23 neonates for analysis of effectiveness of the other methods of urine collection. The cotton wool pad achieved the most measurable samples of urine (82%). Wet diaper had a success rate of 78%, clean catch after bladder stimulation 70% and the adhesive urine collection bag recorded success rate of 56%. Differences observed among the success rates between the four methods were not statistically significant. There was notable variability in urine volume collected, with the clean-catch method yielding a median of 7.0 mL and the cotton wool pad only 1.0 mL.

Indexed as

Urine Specimen CollectionHumansInfant, NewbornMethodsNeonatesStimulation manoeuvreUrine collectionVolume

Identifiers

PMID42581389

DOI10.1186/s13104-026-07971-8

PMCPMC13465378

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata

LicenceCC BY

Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.