1985PubMedRequires access

Effect of urine preservation on urine screening and organism identification.

D N Wright, R Boshard, Peggy A. Ahlin, B A Saxon, John M. Matsen

Open publisher page 4 citations

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.

About this research paper

What this paper is about

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.

Why it matters

OpenAlex reports 4 citations for this work. Citation counts describe recorded attention and do not establish research quality.

Key contribution

A contribution statement is not available in the OpenAlex record.

Method / approach

Method details are not available in the OpenAlex metadata.

Main findings

Findings are not separately available in the OpenAlex metadata.

Limitations

Limitations are not available in the OpenAlex metadata.

Applications

Application details are not available in the OpenAlex metadata.

Available 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.

Key concepts: Urine, Leukocyte esterase, Bacteriuria, Preservative, Urinalysis, Chemistry, Chromatography, Biochemistry

Related papers

Back to paper searchBrowse research topicsOriginal source
Effect of urine preservation on urine screening and organism identification. — Research Paper | ScholarLens