Peer-reviewed veterinary case report
Does using a midstream urine device reduce contamination in dog urine
By Hoel, Meghan et al.·Published in Journal of the American Animal Hospital Association·2024·School of Veterinary Medicine (M.H.)·View original on PubMed →
PetCaseFinder translated the abstract of this peer-reviewed paper into plain English so pet owners can read it. We do not publish original research — every detail traces back to the citation above. How we work →
Original publication title: Urine Contamination Prevalence Using a Midstream Collection Device Compared with Clean Voided Collections in Dogs.
- Species:
- dog
Plain-English summary
A study looked at how to collect urine samples from dogs to avoid contamination. Researchers compared three methods: clean-caught urine, a midstream collection device, and cystocentesis (inserting a needle into the bladder). They found that using the midstream device didn't reduce contamination compared to the clean-caught method, while cystocentesis had significantly lower contamination rates. This means that if a vet can't use cystocentesis, either of the other two methods can be used, but pet owners should be aware that contamination is more likely with these methods.
People also search for: dog urine sample collection · how to collect urine from a dog · dog urine contamination prevention
Abstract
Collecting clean-caught voided urine samples is minimally invasive, but contamination occurs when urine passes through the nonsterile urethra and external genitalia. Discarding the initial urine stream may reduce these contaminants. This study hypothesized that using a midstream urine collection device would decrease bacterial and cellular contamination as compared with cleanly caught voided urine. This descriptive cross-sectional study collected urine from dogs using standard clean-caught (SCC), midstream collection device (MCD), and cystocentesis (CYS) techniques. Urinalysis and aerobic urine culture characteristics were recorded with each characteristic's prevalence described using percentages and 95% confidence intervals for each mode of collection. Positive urine culture prevalence did not differ between SCC and MCD (adjusted P value = .099); however, CYS had a lower prevalence compared with SCC and MCD (adjusted P values of <.001 [CYS versus SCC] and 0.009 [CYS versus MCD]). For other variables, there was no difference in prevalence when comparing SCC with MCD. There was no identified advantage to collecting urine using an MCD as compared with the SCC technique. Either option is a suitable alternative when CYS is not practical; however, clinicians need to interpret results cautiously because bacterial contamination is more common as compared with CYS.
Find similar cases for your pet
PetCaseFinder finds other peer-reviewed reports of pets with the same symptoms, plus a plain-English summary of what was tried across them.
Search related cases →Original publication on PubMed: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/39480741/