TY - JOUR
AU - Isenberg, Henry D
AB - Two methods of urine collection were studied in 109 children (45 boys, 65 girls, mean age 13.4 ± 4.7 years) who were toilet trained, not bedridden, and had no urological problems. On day 1, the patient was asked to void into a disposable paper cup. No other instructions were given. On day 2, traditional clean catch methods were followed using the Bard clean Catch Rigid Funnel Urine Collector with Castile Soap Towelettes. The samples were immediately refrigerated and cultured within 2 hours. All samples were handled identically using the following procedures: urinalysis (Ames Labstix), office culture (Ames Microstix), microscopic examination of the sediment,Gram stain, and urine culture and colony count using a blood agar, selective enterococcus agar, staphylococcus 110 agar, and eosin methylene blue agar plates. There was no statistically significant difference in the colony counts of the urine or in the microscopic examination of the sediments.
TI - IS “CLEAN CATCH” URINE COLLECTION NECESSARY? A COMPARISON OF A SIMPLIFIED METHOD OF COLLECTION AND TRADITIONAL CLEAN CATCH METHODS
JF - Pediatric Research
DO - 10.1203/00006450-198404001-01614
DA - 1984-04-01
UR - https://www.deepdyve.com/lp/springer-journals/is-clean-catch-urine-collection-necessary-a-comparison-of-a-simplified-qPcv3l0gGc
SP - 362
EP - 362
VL - 18
IS - 4
DP - DeepDyve
ER -