Cargando…
Urine collection methods and dipstick testing in non-toilet-trained children
Urinary tract infection is a commonly occurring paediatric infection associated with significant morbidity. Diagnosis is challenging as symptoms are non-specific and definitive diagnosis requires an uncontaminated urine sample to be obtained. Common techniques for sampling in non-toilet-trained chil...
Autores principales: | , |
---|---|
Formato: | Online Artículo Texto |
Lenguaje: | English |
Publicado: |
Springer Berlin Heidelberg
2020
|
Materias: | |
Acceso en línea: | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8172492/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/32918601 http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s00467-020-04742-w |
_version_ | 1783702540549881856 |
---|---|
author | Diviney, James Jaswon, Mervyn S. |
author_facet | Diviney, James Jaswon, Mervyn S. |
author_sort | Diviney, James |
collection | PubMed |
description | Urinary tract infection is a commonly occurring paediatric infection associated with significant morbidity. Diagnosis is challenging as symptoms are non-specific and definitive diagnosis requires an uncontaminated urine sample to be obtained. Common techniques for sampling in non-toilet-trained children include clean catch, bag, pad, in-out catheterisation and suprapubic aspiration. The pros and cons of each method are examined in detail in this review. They differ significantly in frequency of use, contamination rates and acceptability to parents and clinicians. National guidance of which to use differs significantly internationally. No method is clearly superior. For non-invasive testing, clean catch sampling has a lower likelihood of contamination and can be made more efficient through stimulation of voiding in younger children. In invasive testing, suprapubic aspiration gives a lower likelihood of contamination, a high success rate and a low complication rate, but is considered painful and is not preferred by parents. Urine dipstick testing is validated for ruling in or out UTI provided that leucocyte esterase (LE) and nitrite testing are used in combination. |
format | Online Article Text |
id | pubmed-8172492 |
institution | National Center for Biotechnology Information |
language | English |
publishDate | 2020 |
publisher | Springer Berlin Heidelberg |
record_format | MEDLINE/PubMed |
spelling | pubmed-81724922021-06-07 Urine collection methods and dipstick testing in non-toilet-trained children Diviney, James Jaswon, Mervyn S. Pediatr Nephrol Review Urinary tract infection is a commonly occurring paediatric infection associated with significant morbidity. Diagnosis is challenging as symptoms are non-specific and definitive diagnosis requires an uncontaminated urine sample to be obtained. Common techniques for sampling in non-toilet-trained children include clean catch, bag, pad, in-out catheterisation and suprapubic aspiration. The pros and cons of each method are examined in detail in this review. They differ significantly in frequency of use, contamination rates and acceptability to parents and clinicians. National guidance of which to use differs significantly internationally. No method is clearly superior. For non-invasive testing, clean catch sampling has a lower likelihood of contamination and can be made more efficient through stimulation of voiding in younger children. In invasive testing, suprapubic aspiration gives a lower likelihood of contamination, a high success rate and a low complication rate, but is considered painful and is not preferred by parents. Urine dipstick testing is validated for ruling in or out UTI provided that leucocyte esterase (LE) and nitrite testing are used in combination. Springer Berlin Heidelberg 2020-09-12 2021 /pmc/articles/PMC8172492/ /pubmed/32918601 http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s00467-020-04742-w Text en © The Author(s) 2020, corrected publication 2020 https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/) . |
spellingShingle | Review Diviney, James Jaswon, Mervyn S. Urine collection methods and dipstick testing in non-toilet-trained children |
title | Urine collection methods and dipstick testing in non-toilet-trained children |
title_full | Urine collection methods and dipstick testing in non-toilet-trained children |
title_fullStr | Urine collection methods and dipstick testing in non-toilet-trained children |
title_full_unstemmed | Urine collection methods and dipstick testing in non-toilet-trained children |
title_short | Urine collection methods and dipstick testing in non-toilet-trained children |
title_sort | urine collection methods and dipstick testing in non-toilet-trained children |
topic | Review |
url | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8172492/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/32918601 http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s00467-020-04742-w |
work_keys_str_mv | AT divineyjames urinecollectionmethodsanddipsticktestinginnontoilettrainedchildren AT jaswonmervyns urinecollectionmethodsanddipsticktestinginnontoilettrainedchildren |