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.
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 language | English |
---|---|
Pages (from-to) | 479-480 |
Number of pages | 2 |
Journal | Journal of Pediatrics |
Volume | 129 |
Issue number | 3 |
DOIs |
|
Publication status | Published - 1996 |
Externally published | Yes |
Keywords
- circumcision
- urinary tract infection
- children