Effect of urine preservation on urine screening and organism identification.
D N Wright, R Boshard, Peggy A. Ahlin, B A Saxon, John M. Matsen
Abstract
D N Wright, R Boshard, Peggy A. Ahlin, B A Saxon, John M. Matsen
Abstract
Three urine preservation-transport methods were examined for their effect on rapid urine-screening procedures. Results from fresh urine specimens, screened for bacteriuria by leukocyte esterase, nitrate, Autobac, Bac-T-Screen, Auto Microbic System (AMS), and bioluminescence procedures, were compared with urine-screen results from urine specimens held for 24 hours at room temperature in chemical preservatives. Quantitative discrepancies ranged from 0%, for urine preserved with glycerin-boric acid-sodium formate and tested by AMS or leukocyte esterase, to 21% for urines in the same preservative tested by bioluminescence or nitrate. Up to 62% of the organism identifications made from preserved urine specimens tested by the AMS urine card were in error. These data suggest that it may be inadvisable to use weak organic acid-based urine preservation systems in conjunction with these urine-screen procedures.
OpenAlex reports 4 citations for this work. Citation counts describe recorded attention and do not establish research quality.
A contribution statement is not available in the OpenAlex record.
Method details are not available in the OpenAlex metadata.
Findings are not separately available in the OpenAlex metadata.
Limitations are not available in the OpenAlex metadata.
Application details are not available in the OpenAlex metadata.
Three urine preservation-transport methods were examined for their effect on rapid urine-screening procedures. Results from fresh urine specimens, screened for bacteriuria by leukocyte esterase, nitrate, Autobac, Bac-T-Screen, Auto Microbic System (AMS), and bioluminescence procedures, were compared with urine-screen results from urine specimens held for 24 hours at room temperature in chemical preservatives. Quantitative discrepancies ranged from 0%, for urine preserved with glycerin-boric acid-sodium formate and tested by AMS or leukocyte esterase, to 21% for urines in the same preservative tested by bioluminescence or nitrate. Up to 62% of the organism identifications made from preserved urine specimens tested by the AMS urine card were in error. These data suggest that it may be inadvisable to use weak organic acid-based urine preservation systems in conjunction with these urine-screen procedures.
Key concepts: Urine, Leukocyte esterase, Bacteriuria, Preservative, Urinalysis, Chemistry, Chromatography, Biochemistry