使用中游收集装置和清洁排尿收集装置收集犬尿液的污染率比较。

IF 1.5 4区 农林科学 Q2 VETERINARY SCIENCES
Meghan Hoel, Faye A Hartmann, Michael R Lasarev, Michael W Wood
{"title":"使用中游收集装置和清洁排尿收集装置收集犬尿液的污染率比较。","authors":"Meghan Hoel, Faye A Hartmann, Michael R Lasarev, Michael W Wood","doi":"10.5326/JAAHA-MS-7415","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>Collecting clean-caught voided urine samples is minimally invasive, but contamination occurs when urine passes through the nonsterile urethra and external genitalia. Discarding the initial urine stream may reduce these contaminants. This study hypothesized that using a midstream urine collection device would decrease bacterial and cellular contamination as compared with cleanly caught voided urine. This descriptive cross-sectional study collected urine from dogs using standard clean-caught (SCC), midstream collection device (MCD), and cystocentesis (CYS) techniques. Urinalysis and aerobic urine culture characteristics were recorded with each characteristic's prevalence described using percentages and 95% confidence intervals for each mode of collection. Positive urine culture prevalence did not differ between SCC and MCD (adjusted P value = .099); however, CYS had a lower prevalence compared with SCC and MCD (adjusted P values of <.001 [CYS versus SCC] and 0.009 [CYS versus MCD]). For other variables, there was no difference in prevalence when comparing SCC with MCD. There was no identified advantage to collecting urine using an MCD as compared with the SCC technique. Either option is a suitable alternative when CYS is not practical; however, clinicians need to interpret results cautiously because bacterial contamination is more common as compared with CYS.</p>","PeriodicalId":17185,"journal":{"name":"Journal of the American Animal Hospital Association","volume":"60 6","pages":"247-251"},"PeriodicalIF":1.5000,"publicationDate":"2024-11-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Urine Contamination Prevalence Using a Midstream Collection Device Compared with Clean Voided Collections in Dogs.\",\"authors\":\"Meghan Hoel, Faye A Hartmann, Michael R Lasarev, Michael W Wood\",\"doi\":\"10.5326/JAAHA-MS-7415\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><p>Collecting clean-caught voided urine samples is minimally invasive, but contamination occurs when urine passes through the nonsterile urethra and external genitalia. Discarding the initial urine stream may reduce these contaminants. This study hypothesized that using a midstream urine collection device would decrease bacterial and cellular contamination as compared with cleanly caught voided urine. This descriptive cross-sectional study collected urine from dogs using standard clean-caught (SCC), midstream collection device (MCD), and cystocentesis (CYS) techniques. Urinalysis and aerobic urine culture characteristics were recorded with each characteristic's prevalence described using percentages and 95% confidence intervals for each mode of collection. Positive urine culture prevalence did not differ between SCC and MCD (adjusted P value = .099); however, CYS had a lower prevalence compared with SCC and MCD (adjusted P values of <.001 [CYS versus SCC] and 0.009 [CYS versus MCD]). For other variables, there was no difference in prevalence when comparing SCC with MCD. There was no identified advantage to collecting urine using an MCD as compared with the SCC technique. Either option is a suitable alternative when CYS is not practical; however, clinicians need to interpret results cautiously because bacterial contamination is more common as compared with CYS.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":17185,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Journal of the American Animal Hospital Association\",\"volume\":\"60 6\",\"pages\":\"247-251\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":1.5000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-11-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Journal of the American Animal Hospital Association\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"97\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.5326/JAAHA-MS-7415\",\"RegionNum\":4,\"RegionCategory\":\"农林科学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"VETERINARY SCIENCES\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of the American Animal Hospital Association","FirstCategoryId":"97","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.5326/JAAHA-MS-7415","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"农林科学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"VETERINARY SCIENCES","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

收集干净的排空尿液样本创伤很小,但尿液通过未经消毒的尿道和外生殖器时会造成污染。丢弃最初的尿流可减少这些污染物。本研究假设,使用中段尿液收集装置会比干净收集的排空尿液减少细菌和细胞污染。这项描述性横断面研究采用标准清洁捕捉(SCC)、中游尿液收集装置(MCD)和膀胱穿刺(CYS)技术收集狗的尿液。研究人员记录了尿液分析和需氧尿培养的特征,并用百分比和 95% 的置信区间描述了每种收集方式下每种特征的流行率。尿培养阳性率在 SCC 和 MCD 之间没有差异(调整后的 P 值 = .099);但 CYS 的阳性率低于 SCC 和 MCD(调整后的 P 值 = .099)。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Urine Contamination Prevalence Using a Midstream Collection Device Compared with Clean Voided Collections in Dogs.

Collecting clean-caught voided urine samples is minimally invasive, but contamination occurs when urine passes through the nonsterile urethra and external genitalia. Discarding the initial urine stream may reduce these contaminants. This study hypothesized that using a midstream urine collection device would decrease bacterial and cellular contamination as compared with cleanly caught voided urine. This descriptive cross-sectional study collected urine from dogs using standard clean-caught (SCC), midstream collection device (MCD), and cystocentesis (CYS) techniques. Urinalysis and aerobic urine culture characteristics were recorded with each characteristic's prevalence described using percentages and 95% confidence intervals for each mode of collection. Positive urine culture prevalence did not differ between SCC and MCD (adjusted P value = .099); however, CYS had a lower prevalence compared with SCC and MCD (adjusted P values of <.001 [CYS versus SCC] and 0.009 [CYS versus MCD]). For other variables, there was no difference in prevalence when comparing SCC with MCD. There was no identified advantage to collecting urine using an MCD as compared with the SCC technique. Either option is a suitable alternative when CYS is not practical; however, clinicians need to interpret results cautiously because bacterial contamination is more common as compared with CYS.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
2.70
自引率
0.00%
发文量
57
审稿时长
18-36 weeks
期刊介绍: The purpose of the JAAHA is to publish relevant, original, timely scientific and technical information pertaining to the practice of small animal medicine and surgery.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信