Reply to the Editors: Effect of circumcision on incidence of urinary tract infection in preschool boys

J. C. Craig, J. F. Knight, P. Sureshkumar, E. Mantz, L. P. Roy

Research output: Contribution to journalComment/debate

1 Citation (Scopus)

Abstract

We thank Drs. Cold, Van Howe, Fleiss, and Hodges for their thoughtful comments on our work. Both groups of correspondents have common concerns regarding the reliability of midstream urine cultures without meatal cleansing and foreskin retraction in the diagnosis of urine infection and the absence of adjustment for “known” confounders, such as breast-feeding, hygiene, race, and “rooming-in.”

As referred to in our study, Saez-Lorens et al.1 have previously shown that the contamination rate for urine obtained with and without meatal cleansing in uncircumcised boys was not significantly different. The studies cited by Drs. Cold and Van Howe either did not include a midstream urine sample group2 or demonstrated that the results of a midstream urine sample and suprapubic bladder aspiration in circumcised boys were nearly identical.3 Neither study suggests that midstream urine samples from boys are an unreliable method of urine collection.
Original languageEnglish
Pages (from-to)479-480
Number of pages2
JournalJournal of Pediatrics
Volume129
Issue number3
DOIs
Publication statusPublished - 1996
Externally publishedYes

Keywords

  • circumcision
  • urinary tract infection
  • children

Fingerprint Dive into the research topics of 'Reply to the Editors: Effect of circumcision on incidence of urinary tract infection in preschool boys'. Together they form a unique fingerprint.

  • Cite this