Journal article icon

Journal article

Urine collection devices to reduce contamination in urine samples for diagnosis of uncomplicated UTI: a single-blind randomised controlled trial in primary care

Abstract:
Background Urine collection devices (UCDs) are being marketed and used in clinical settings to reduce urine sample contamination, despite inadequate supporting evidence.
Aim To determine whether UCDs, compared with standardised instructions for urine sample collection, reduce the proportion of contaminated samples.
Design and setting Single-blind randomised controlled trial in general practices in England and Wales.
Method Women aged ≥18 years presenting with symptoms attributable to urinary tract infection (UTI) were randomised (1:1:1) to use either a Peezy UCD or a Whiz Midstream UCD, or were given standardised verbal instructions (SVI) for midstream sample collection. The primary outcome was the proportion of urine samples reported as contaminated by microbiology laboratory analysis.
Results A total of 1264 women (Peezy UCD: n = 424; Whiz Midstream UCD: n = 421; SVI: n = 419) were randomised between October 2016 and August 2018. Ninety women were excluded from the primary analysis as a result of ineligibility or lack of primary outcome data, leaving 1174 (Peezy UCD: n = 381; Whiz Midstream UCD: n = 390; SVI: n = 403) for intention-to-treat analysis. The proportion of contaminated samples was 26.5% with the Peezy UCD, 28.2% with the Whiz Midstream UCD, and 29.0% with SVI (relative risk: Peezy UCD versus SVI = 0.91, 95% CI = 0.76 to 1.09, P = 0.32; Whiz Midstream UCD versus SVI = 0.98, 95% CI = 0.97 to 1.20, P = 0.82). There were 100 (25.3%) device failures with the Peezy UCD and 35 (8.8%) with the Whiz Midstream UCD; the proportion of contaminated samples was similar after device failure samples were excluded.
Conclusion Neither the Peezy UCD nor the Whiz Midstream UCD reduced urine sample contamination when used by women presenting to primary care with suspected UTI. Their use cannot be recommended for this purpose in this setting.
Publication status:
Published
Peer review status:
Peer reviewed

Actions


Access Document


Publisher copy:
10.3399/bjgp.2021.0359

Authors


More by this author
Institution:
University of Oxford
Division:
MSD
Department:
Primary Care Health Sciences
Oxford college:
Exeter College
Role:
Author
ORCID:
0000-0003-0852-627X
More by this author
Institution:
University of Oxford
Division:
MSD
Department:
Primary Care Health Sciences
Role:
Author
ORCID:
0000-0003-0331-7364
More by this author
Institution:
University of Oxford
Division:
MSD
Department:
Paediatrics
Oxford college:
All Souls College
Role:
Author
ORCID:
0000-0001-6324-6559


Publisher:
Royal College of General Practitioners
Journal:
British Journal of General Practice More from this journal
Volume:
72
Issue:
716
Pages:
e225-e33
Publication date:
2022-02-24
Acceptance date:
2021-09-14
DOI:
EISSN:
1478-5242
ISSN:
0960-1643
Pmid:
34990390


Language:
English
Keywords:
Pubs id:
1230533
Local pid:
pubs:1230533
Deposit date:
2022-03-08

Terms of use



Views and Downloads






If you are the owner of this record, you can report an update to it here: Report update to this record

TO TOP