2.50
Hdl Handle:
http://hdl.handle.net/10755/335605
Category:
Abstract
Type:
Presentation
Title:
Clean or Not to Clean: A Comparison of Urine Collection Techniques
Author(s):
Su, Shu-Fang; Chen, Yao-Mei; Chiu, Wan-Wen; Fang, Yueh-Yen
Lead Author STTI Affiliation:
Pi
Author Details:
Shu-Fang Su, MS, RN, sushu1202@yahoo.com; Yao-Mei Chen, PhD, RN; Wan-Wen Chiu, RN; Yueh-Yen Fang, PhD, RN
Abstract:
Session presented on Sunday, July 27, 2014: Purpose: The purpose of this study was to compare the validity of urine collection between clean-catch midstream technique and non-cleansing midstream technique in females. Methods: Meta-analyses were conducted to compare urine contamination rates between samples collected from females by using clean-catch midstream technique (CCMS) and non-cleansing midstream technique (NCMS). Four English and one Chinese electronic databases were used to search literature up to June, 2013. MeSH terms ‘urine specimen collection’ and ‘urine collection’ were used to search published studies. References addressed in included studies were also screened. Studies that provided comparisons on urine sample contamination rates between NCMS and CCMS were included. To promote validity of data abstraction, data were extracted by two researchers independently. Disagreement on data abstraction was resolved by complete consensus between researchers. Study quality was evaluated by the Johns Hopkins Nursing Evidence-based Practice Quality Rating Scale. Data analysis was performed by using the random effect model. Results: Six studies that provided seven comparisons were identified from 2812 citations. The total subjects involved were 1181 patients. Four studies were conducted in the United States, and two studies were conducted in the England. Two studies used a single group pre-post design; four studies applied a two group experimental design. Only two studies randomized study subjects into groups. Study qualities of included studies ranged from Ib to IIc. The result of meta-analysis on two studies with one group pre-post design suggested no difference in contamination rates of urine samples collected by either NCMS or CCMS techniques (OR=.962, p=.608). The meta-analysis of four studies with two independent groups also presented a similar result (OR=.892, p=.638). Conclusion: The CCMS technique was recommended since early 1950s. It is also a practice standard recommended by many authorities. However, the CCMS requires a time-consuming instruction, and is frequently performed not correctly. It is also costly for supplies. This meta-analysis study suggested that results of current urine collection studies consistently supported no variation in validity between NCMS and CCMS techniques. Because of lower study quality of included studies, this study encouraged more high quality studies to be conducted before having the NCMS technique as the clinical practice guideline for urine collection.
Keywords:
urine collection; urine specimen collection; urine contamination
Repository Posting Date:
17-Nov-2014
Date of Publication:
17-Nov-2014
Conference Date:
2014
Conference Name:
25th International Nursing Research Congress
Conference Host:
Sigma Theta Tau International, the Honor Society of Nursing
Conference Location:
Hong Kong
Description:
International Nursing Research Congress, 2014 Theme: Engaging Colleagues: Improving Global Health Outcomes. Held at the Hong Kong Convention and Exhibition Centre, Wanchai, Hong Kong
Note:
This is an abstract-only submission. If the author has submitted a full-text item related to this abstract, you may find it by browsing the repository by author. If author contact information is availabe in this abstract, please feel free to contact him or her with your queries regarding this submission.

Full metadata record

DC FieldValue Language
dc.language.isoen_USen_GB
dc.type.categoryAbstracten_GB
dc.typePresentationen_GB
dc.titleClean or Not to Clean: A Comparison of Urine Collection Techniquesen_GB
dc.contributor.authorSu, Shu-Fangen_GB
dc.contributor.authorChen, Yao-Meien_GB
dc.contributor.authorChiu, Wan-Wenen_GB
dc.contributor.authorFang, Yueh-Yenen_GB
dc.contributor.departmentPien_GB
dc.author.detailsShu-Fang Su, MS, RN, sushu1202@yahoo.com; Yao-Mei Chen, PhD, RN; Wan-Wen Chiu, RN; Yueh-Yen Fang, PhD, RNen_GB
dc.identifier.urihttp://hdl.handle.net/10755/335605-
dc.description.abstractSession presented on Sunday, July 27, 2014: Purpose: The purpose of this study was to compare the validity of urine collection between clean-catch midstream technique and non-cleansing midstream technique in females. Methods: Meta-analyses were conducted to compare urine contamination rates between samples collected from females by using clean-catch midstream technique (CCMS) and non-cleansing midstream technique (NCMS). Four English and one Chinese electronic databases were used to search literature up to June, 2013. MeSH terms ‘urine specimen collection’ and ‘urine collection’ were used to search published studies. References addressed in included studies were also screened. Studies that provided comparisons on urine sample contamination rates between NCMS and CCMS were included. To promote validity of data abstraction, data were extracted by two researchers independently. Disagreement on data abstraction was resolved by complete consensus between researchers. Study quality was evaluated by the Johns Hopkins Nursing Evidence-based Practice Quality Rating Scale. Data analysis was performed by using the random effect model. Results: Six studies that provided seven comparisons were identified from 2812 citations. The total subjects involved were 1181 patients. Four studies were conducted in the United States, and two studies were conducted in the England. Two studies used a single group pre-post design; four studies applied a two group experimental design. Only two studies randomized study subjects into groups. Study qualities of included studies ranged from Ib to IIc. The result of meta-analysis on two studies with one group pre-post design suggested no difference in contamination rates of urine samples collected by either NCMS or CCMS techniques (OR=.962, p=.608). The meta-analysis of four studies with two independent groups also presented a similar result (OR=.892, p=.638). Conclusion: The CCMS technique was recommended since early 1950s. It is also a practice standard recommended by many authorities. However, the CCMS requires a time-consuming instruction, and is frequently performed not correctly. It is also costly for supplies. This meta-analysis study suggested that results of current urine collection studies consistently supported no variation in validity between NCMS and CCMS techniques. Because of lower study quality of included studies, this study encouraged more high quality studies to be conducted before having the NCMS technique as the clinical practice guideline for urine collection.en_GB
dc.subjecturine collectionen_GB
dc.subjecturine specimen collectionen_GB
dc.subjecturine contaminationen_GB
dc.date.available2014-11-17T13:55:43Z-
dc.date.issued2014-11-17-
dc.date.accessioned2014-11-17T13:55:43Z-
dc.conference.date2014en_GB
dc.conference.name25th International Nursing Research Congressen_GB
dc.conference.hostSigma Theta Tau International, the Honor Society of Nursingen_GB
dc.conference.locationHong Kongen_GB
dc.descriptionInternational Nursing Research Congress, 2014 Theme: Engaging Colleagues: Improving Global Health Outcomes. Held at the Hong Kong Convention and Exhibition Centre, Wanchai, Hong Kongen_GB
dc.description.noteThis is an abstract-only submission. If the author has submitted a full-text item related to this abstract, you may find it by browsing the repository by author. If author contact information is availabe in this abstract, please feel free to contact him or her with your queries regarding this submission.en_GB
All Items in this repository are protected by copyright, with all rights reserved, unless otherwise indicated.