ClinicalTrials.gg
CompletedNCT03131609Updated Apr 20, 2020

Avoiding Bacterial Contamination of Clean Catch Urine Cultures in Ambulatory Patients in the Emergency Department

An observational study in Urinary Tract Infections, Bacteriuria and Urinalysis, sponsored by Stanford University. Completed at 1 site in United States. Open to participants aged 18 Years and older. Per ClinicalTrials.gov, last updated 2020-04-20.

Primary conditionBacteriuriaRegistry: Urinary Tract InfectionsReclassifiedWhy we changed it
Registry
Urinary Tract Infections — the first condition term the registry derived for this study.
ClinicalTrials.gg
Bacteriuria
Why
  1. The study's listed conditions name Bacteriuria, a narrower term within Urinary Tract Infections.
Confidence
High: the new condition is named in the study's own listed conditions. Of 351 hand-checked studies reclassified this way, 68% were exactly right and 84% in the right disease family; the registry's first term was right for 5% (measured 2026-10-21). How we classify →
Wrong?
Tell us the study's main condition →

Sponsored by Stanford University · Observational

Study type
Observational
Model
Cohort
Time perspective
Prospective
Enrollment
1,471
Ages
18 Years and older
Sex
All
01

Study summary

The purpose of this study is to find the best cleaning and collection methods to obtain a 'non-contaminated' clean catch mid-stream urine sample to diagnose suspected urinary tract infection (UTI).

Read the detailed description

BACKGROUND: Urinary tract infection (UTI) is a major public health issue resulting in more than 3-million visits to Emergency Departments in the United States each year. As part of the diagnostic work up, a sterile urine sample is requested for culture. The preferred urine specimen is a "Clean Catch Midstream Urine Sample". When patients are ambulatory and competent, this is a self-obtained specimen in a private bathroom. If the urine is not collected in a sterile manner the urine sample may be 'contaminated' by bacteria that originate from the skin or genital area, and not from the urinary tract. This is often described by the clinical laboratory as 'mixed growth bacteria'. A contaminated sample may lead to a false-positive urine culture result. In a non-contaminated urine specimen, only a single bacterial growth is identified as the source of the infection. Mixed bacterial flora with two or more microorganisms makes interpretation of the urine culture more difficult and prone to error. The American College of Pathologists has published results of national laboratory surveys on Urine Culture Contamination in 1998 and 2008 that document the scope of the problem.

SAMPLE: Adult ambulatory patients in the Emergency Department who have a suspected UTI and have a urine culture ordered by a physician. A total of 2000 patients will be enrolled (500 per group). This is estimated to result in 600 urine samples (150 per group). Written consent is not normally required for a self-obtained urine sample. The study will be explained and participants will verbally consent or decline to participate, as approved by the Institutional Review Board.

SETTING: Emergency Department of an academic medical center.

METHOD: This is a randomized controlled trial (RCT) with 4 groups that compare different patient self-cleaning and self-collection methods. All study supplies materials are commercially available in the United States. Each participant will be provided with study-specific visual aids for male or female participants and their randomly assigned group. The four groups are:

Group 1: Standard moist wipes and standard collection container. Group 2: Silver impregnated moist wipes and standard collection container. Group 3: Standard moist wipes and funnel collection container. Group 4: Silver impregnated moist wipes and funnel collection container. The urine samples will be sent to the Hospital Microbiology Laboratory for analysis. Urine samples with a positive leuk-esterase pre-screen will be sent for urine culture.

DATA ANALYSIS:This study is powered to detect a large effect size change in any study groups (2. 3. 4) compared with control (group 1). The sample size is sufficient to identify the method(s) with the lowest urine sample contamination rate.

02

Conditions studied

  • Urinary Tract Infections
  • Bacteriuria
  • Urinalysis

Browse trials for

03

In context

Bacteriuria Reclassified

51 studies on the registry are indexed under Bacteriuria; 3 are open to participants now.

Browse Bacteriuria studies →

Lead sponsor

Stanford University is the lead sponsor of 2,168 studies on the registry; 431 are open to participants now.

Of its 267 completed or terminated interventional studies of FDA-regulated products, 207 (78%) have results posted.

Compared within Bacteriuria, this study's primary condition as ClinicalTrials.gg classifies it; the registry's first condition term is Urinary Tract Infections. The counts are of registry records indexed under each term, refreshed daily. How we classify →

04

Who can participate

Ages eligible
18 Years and older
Sexes eligible
All
Accepts healthy volunteers
No
Sampling method
Probability sample

Study population

Ambulatory patients in the Emergency Department at an Academic Medical Center with a physician order for a urine culture. Patient must be able to self-obtain the urine culture.

Go through the criteria one by one — yes, no or not sure — and take the list to your doctor or the study team. Kept in this browser only.

Inclusion criteria

  • 18 years of older
  • Urine culture order by physician

Exclusion criteria

Exclusion Criteria:

  • Under 18 years of age
  • Urinary catheter in place
  • Not ambulatory
05

Study design

Observational model
Cohort
Time perspective
Prospective
Enrollment
1,471 participants (actual)
Patient registry
No

Groups and cohorts

  • A: Container + Castile-soap wipe

    Sterile urine collection container and Castile-soap wipe given to patient to self-obtain a clean catch mid-stream urine specimen - Control group represents usual care in the Emergency Department.

    Other: Container · Other: Castile-soap wipe

  • B: Container + Silver impregnated wipe

    Sterile urine collection container and silver-impregnated cloth-wipe given to patient to self-obtain a clean catch mid-stream urine specimen

    Other: Container · Other: Silver Impregnated Wipe

  • C: Funnel + Castile-soap wipe

    Sterile urine collection funnel and Castile-soap wipe given to patient to self-obtain a clean catch mid-stream urine specimen

    Other: Funnel · Other: Castile-soap wipe

  • D: Funnel + Silver-impregnated wipe

    Urine collection funnel and sliver impregnated cloth-wipe given to patient to self-obtain a clean catch mid-stream urine specimen

    Other: Silver Impregnated Wipe · Other: Funnel

Interventions

  • OtherContainer

    Ambulatory patients in the Emergency Department who have a urine culture ordered by the physician receive one of four urine collection/hygiene options.

    Also known as: Standard container for urine collection

  • OtherSilver Impregnated Wipe

    Ambulatory patients in the Emergency Department who have a urine culture ordered by the physician receive one of four urine collection/hygiene options.

    Also known as: Theraworx

  • OtherFunnel

    Ambulatory patients in the Emergency Department who have a urine culture ordered by the physician receive one of four urine collection/hygiene options.

    Also known as: Peezy Mid-stream urine collection kit

  • OtherCastile-soap wipe

    Ambulatory patients in the Emergency Department who have a urine culture ordered by the physician receive one of four urine collection/hygiene options.

06

What researchers measure

Primary outcomes

  1. Decrease in the number of contaminated urine cultures

    Contamination \>10,000 CFU/mL mixed flora identified by Clinical Laboratory

    Time frame: 9 months

07

Study locations

1 site
  • Stanford University
    Stanford, California 94305, United States
08

References and documents

Publications

  • Lough ME, Shradar E, Hsieh C, Hedlin H. Contamination in Adult Midstream Clean-Catch Urine Cultures in the Emergency Department: A Randomized Controlled Trial. J Emerg Nurs. 2019 Sep;45(5):488-501. doi: 10.1016/j.jen.2019.06.001. PubMed 31445626 ↗

Individual participant data

Plan to share: No

09

Updates

Tracking since Sep 25, 2026
No changes since tracking began. The registry record was last updated on Apr 20, 2020, before this site started recording changes on Sep 25, 2026. Its history is on ClinicalTrials.gov ↗
10

Registry details

Key details

Study ID
NCT03131609
Collaborators
EBLEN Charities, Forte Medical Ltd., Avadim Technologies, Inc.
Responsible party
Mary Lough (Clinical Assistant Professor, Stanford University) — Principal investigator
First posted
Apr 27, 2017
Start date
Sep 2015
Primary completion
Sep 2016
Completion
Sep 2016
Last update
Apr 20, 2020

Study contacts

Mary E. Lough, PhD, RN
principal investigator · Stanford University

Oversight

Data monitoring committee
No
View the source record on ClinicalTrials.gov ↗

Not currently enrolling

This study is completed, as verified in Apr 2020. You cannot join it, but the record below documents what was studied.

Follow this study

Get an email when the registry record changes — status, dates, results — or when someone posts here.

Sign in to follow

Discussion

Questions and observations about this study, from anyone following it. Not medical advice, and not a channel to the study team — their contact details are on the registry record.

Sign in to join the discussion. Reading takes no account; posting does. You choose a display name, and a pseudonym is the default.

Nothing here yet. If you are running this trial, taking part in it, or weighing whether to, this is the place to say so.

Start the discussion