犬只自由采集尿液样本的尿液分析和培养结果:随机对照试验

IF 1.7 2区 农林科学 Q2 VETERINARY SCIENCES Journal of Small Animal Practice Pub Date : 2024-04-15 DOI:10.1111/jsap.13730
W. W. Mandese, M. Suero, P. S. Reynolds, S. Kariyawasam, S. Beatty, F. Griffin
{"title":"犬只自由采集尿液样本的尿液分析和培养结果:随机对照试验","authors":"W. W. Mandese,&nbsp;M. Suero,&nbsp;P. S. Reynolds,&nbsp;S. Kariyawasam,&nbsp;S. Beatty,&nbsp;F. Griffin","doi":"10.1111/jsap.13730","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div>\n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Objectives</h3>\n \n <p>To evaluate the prevalence of bacterial presence in free-catch urine samples preceded by either a standardised prepped (“clean-catch”) protocol <i>versus</i> unprepped (non-cleaned) voiding.</p>\n </section>\n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Materials and Methods</h3>\n \n <p>The study was a single-centre prospective single-blinded randomised controlled trial. Urine samples were obtained from 100 client-owned dogs presenting for routine evaluation. Dogs were randomly assigned to either the prepped group (preputial or peri-vulvar area cleaned with sterile saline before collection) or the unprepped group (no preliminary cleansing) stratified by sex. Urinalysis and urine culture (blood and MacConkey agar) were performed on all samples. Significant bacterial presence on urine culture was defined as &gt;10<sup>4</sup> colony forming units (CFU)/mL.</p>\n </section>\n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Results</h3>\n \n <p>There were no statistically significant associations between prepped <i>versus</i> unprepped collection method or sex with a urinalysis positive for bacteriuria. However, on culture, significant bacterial growth was almost five times more likely to be associated with males relative to females (odds ratio 4.59, 95% confidence interval 1.61 to 13.10). The probability of finding a positive culture was not statistically associated with prep method (odds ratio 1.43, 95% confidence interval 0.50 to 4.08).</p>\n </section>\n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Clinical Significance</h3>\n \n <p>For the majority of dogs without clinical signs of urinary tract infection, free-catch urine collection does not result in significant bacteriuria found on analysis or culture. The presence of bacteria found in free-catch samples may be secondary to sample contamination or subclinical bacteriuria. Sample contamination or subclinical bacteriuria may be more prevalent in male dogs.</p>\n </section>\n </div>","PeriodicalId":17062,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Small Animal Practice","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":1.7000,"publicationDate":"2024-04-15","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Urinalysis and culture results of free-catch urine samples in dogs: a randomised controlled trial\",\"authors\":\"W. W. Mandese,&nbsp;M. Suero,&nbsp;P. S. Reynolds,&nbsp;S. Kariyawasam,&nbsp;S. Beatty,&nbsp;F. Griffin\",\"doi\":\"10.1111/jsap.13730\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<div>\\n \\n <section>\\n \\n <h3> Objectives</h3>\\n \\n <p>To evaluate the prevalence of bacterial presence in free-catch urine samples preceded by either a standardised prepped (“clean-catch”) protocol <i>versus</i> unprepped (non-cleaned) voiding.</p>\\n </section>\\n \\n <section>\\n \\n <h3> Materials and Methods</h3>\\n \\n <p>The study was a single-centre prospective single-blinded randomised controlled trial. Urine samples were obtained from 100 client-owned dogs presenting for routine evaluation. Dogs were randomly assigned to either the prepped group (preputial or peri-vulvar area cleaned with sterile saline before collection) or the unprepped group (no preliminary cleansing) stratified by sex. Urinalysis and urine culture (blood and MacConkey agar) were performed on all samples. Significant bacterial presence on urine culture was defined as &gt;10<sup>4</sup> colony forming units (CFU)/mL.</p>\\n </section>\\n \\n <section>\\n \\n <h3> Results</h3>\\n \\n <p>There were no statistically significant associations between prepped <i>versus</i> unprepped collection method or sex with a urinalysis positive for bacteriuria. However, on culture, significant bacterial growth was almost five times more likely to be associated with males relative to females (odds ratio 4.59, 95% confidence interval 1.61 to 13.10). The probability of finding a positive culture was not statistically associated with prep method (odds ratio 1.43, 95% confidence interval 0.50 to 4.08).</p>\\n </section>\\n \\n <section>\\n \\n <h3> Clinical Significance</h3>\\n \\n <p>For the majority of dogs without clinical signs of urinary tract infection, free-catch urine collection does not result in significant bacteriuria found on analysis or culture. The presence of bacteria found in free-catch samples may be secondary to sample contamination or subclinical bacteriuria. Sample contamination or subclinical bacteriuria may be more prevalent in male dogs.</p>\\n </section>\\n </div>\",\"PeriodicalId\":17062,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Journal of Small Animal Practice\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":1.7000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-04-15\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Journal of Small Animal Practice\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"97\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/jsap.13730\",\"RegionNum\":2,\"RegionCategory\":\"农林科学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"VETERINARY SCIENCES\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Small Animal Practice","FirstCategoryId":"97","ListUrlMain":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/jsap.13730","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"农林科学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"VETERINARY SCIENCES","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

目的:评估采用标准化预处理("清洁采集")方案和未预处理(非清洁)排空法采集的自由采集尿样中细菌的流行率。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
Urinalysis and culture results of free-catch urine samples in dogs: a randomised controlled trial

Objectives

To evaluate the prevalence of bacterial presence in free-catch urine samples preceded by either a standardised prepped (“clean-catch”) protocol versus unprepped (non-cleaned) voiding.

Materials and Methods

The study was a single-centre prospective single-blinded randomised controlled trial. Urine samples were obtained from 100 client-owned dogs presenting for routine evaluation. Dogs were randomly assigned to either the prepped group (preputial or peri-vulvar area cleaned with sterile saline before collection) or the unprepped group (no preliminary cleansing) stratified by sex. Urinalysis and urine culture (blood and MacConkey agar) were performed on all samples. Significant bacterial presence on urine culture was defined as >104 colony forming units (CFU)/mL.

Results

There were no statistically significant associations between prepped versus unprepped collection method or sex with a urinalysis positive for bacteriuria. However, on culture, significant bacterial growth was almost five times more likely to be associated with males relative to females (odds ratio 4.59, 95% confidence interval 1.61 to 13.10). The probability of finding a positive culture was not statistically associated with prep method (odds ratio 1.43, 95% confidence interval 0.50 to 4.08).

Clinical Significance

For the majority of dogs without clinical signs of urinary tract infection, free-catch urine collection does not result in significant bacteriuria found on analysis or culture. The presence of bacteria found in free-catch samples may be secondary to sample contamination or subclinical bacteriuria. Sample contamination or subclinical bacteriuria may be more prevalent in male dogs.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Journal of Small Animal Practice
Journal of Small Animal Practice 农林科学-兽医学
CiteScore
3.30
自引率
6.20%
发文量
117
审稿时长
12-24 weeks
期刊介绍: Journal of Small Animal Practice (JSAP) is a monthly peer-reviewed publication integrating clinical research papers and case reports from international sources, covering all aspects of medicine and surgery relating to dogs, cats and other small animals. These papers facilitate the dissemination and implementation of new ideas and techniques relating to clinical veterinary practice, with the ultimate aim of promoting best practice. JSAP publishes high quality original articles, as well as other scientific and educational information. New developments are placed in perspective, encompassing new concepts and peer commentary. The target audience is veterinarians primarily engaged in the practise of small animal medicine and surgery. In addition to original articles, JSAP will publish invited editorials (relating to a manuscript in the same issue or a topic of current interest), review articles, which provide in-depth discussion of important clinical issues, and other scientific and educational information from around the world. The final decision on publication of a manuscript rests with the Editorial Board and ultimately with the Editor. All papers, regardless of type, represent the opinion of the authors and not necessarily that of the Editor, the Association or the Publisher. The Journal of Small Animal Practice is published on behalf of the British Small Animal Veterinary Association and is also the official scientific journal of the World Small Animal Veterinary Association
期刊最新文献
Fungal dysbiosis following antibacterial monotherapy in canine otitis externa. Spinal shock in a dog with steroid-responsive meningitis-arteritis extending to the brainstem. Standard tests of haemostasis do not predict elevated thromboelastographic maximum amplitude, an index of hypercoagulability, in sick dogs. Stapled functional end-to-end intestinal anastomosis with endovascular gastrointestinal anastomosis staplers in cats and small dogs. Intravesical urinary bladder duplication in a dog.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1