Purpose: This study aimed to determine whether there are significant differences in urinalysis results between midstream urine (MSU) and midstream clean-catch (MSCC) collection methods in adult patients. Methods: A systematic literature search was conducted across nine electronic databases. Six studies were included: three systematic reviews, one randomized controlled trial, and two non-randomized studies. Quality of the included studies was assessed using the AMSTAR 2 for systematic reviews, ROB 2 for randomized trial, and ROBINS-I for non-randomized studies. Results: Three studies were assessed as having a low risk of bias. According to the Infectious Diseases Society of America (IDSA) grading system, the overall level of evidence was classified as Level I, with a recommendation grade of A. No significant differences were observed in diagnostic accuracy or contamination rates between the MSU and MSCC methods. Conclusion: The MSU method may be recommended for urinalysis in adult patients, as no significant differences in diagnostic accuracy or contamination rates were identified compared with the MSCC method. Given its greater time and cost efficiency, the MSU method may facilitate the standardization of urine specimen collection in clinical practice while enhancing nursing efficiency and reducing healthcare resource utilization.
Purpose: This study aimed to determine whether there are significant differences in urinalysis results between midstream urine (MSU) and midstream clean-catch (MSCC) collection methods in adult patients. Methods: A systematic literature search was conducted across nine electronic databases. Six studies were included: three systematic reviews, one randomized controlled trial, and two non-randomized studies. Quality of the included studies was assessed using the AMSTAR 2 for systematic reviews, ROB 2 for randomized trial, and ROBINS-I for non-randomized studies. Results: Three studies were assessed as having a low risk of bias. According to the Infectious Diseases Society of America (IDSA) grading system, the overall level of evidence was classified as Level I, with a recommendation grade of A. No significant differences were observed in diagnostic accuracy or contamination rates between the MSU and MSCC methods. Conclusion: The MSU method may be recommended for urinalysis in adult patients, as no significant differences in diagnostic accuracy or contamination rates were identified compared with the MSCC method. Given its greater time and cost efficiency, the MSU method may facilitate the standardization of urine specimen collection in clinical practice while enhancing nursing efficiency and reducing healthcare resource utilization.
배경 및 목적 임상질문 근거 검색 근거의 비평적 평가 근거수준과 권고등급 권고안 임상실무 적용 평 가 ORCID REFERENCES
