↓ Skip to main content

The resident microflora of voided midstream urine of healthy controls: standard versus expanded urine culture protocols

Overview of attention for article published in European Journal of Clinical Microbiology & Infectious Diseases, November 2016
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (79th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (89th percentile)

Mentioned by

blogs
1 blog
twitter
3 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
31 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
37 Mendeley
Title
The resident microflora of voided midstream urine of healthy controls: standard versus expanded urine culture protocols
Published in
European Journal of Clinical Microbiology & Infectious Diseases, November 2016
DOI 10.1007/s10096-016-2839-x
Pubmed ID
Authors

L. Coorevits, S. Heytens, J. Boelens, G. Claeys

Abstract

The workup and interpretation of urine cultures is not always clear-cut, especially for midstream samples contaminated with commensals. Standard urine culture (SUC) protocols are designed in favor of growth of uropathogens at the expense of commensals. In selected clinical situations, however, it is essential to trace fastidious or new uropathogens by expanding the urine culture conditions (EUC). The aim of our study was to map the microflora in midstream urine specimens from healthy controls by means of EUC, in view of the interpretation of bacterial culture results in symptomatic patients. Midstream urine specimens from 101 healthy controls (86 females and 15 males) were examined using both SUC and EUC. Whilst 73 % of samples examined by SUC showed no growth at 10(3) colony-forming units (CFU)/mL, 91 % of samples examined by EUC grew bacterial species in large numbers (≥10(4) CFU/mL). Asymptomatic bacteriuria, as defined by the European guidelines for urinalysis, was detected in six samples with both protocols. EUC revealed 98 different species, mostly Lactobacillus, Staphylococcus, Streptococcus, and Corynebacterium. None of the samples grew Staphylococcus saprophyticus, Corynebacterium urealyticum, or Aerococcus urinae. Samples from females contained higher bacterial loads and showed higher bacterial diversity compared to males. Midstream urine of healthy controls contains large communities of living bacteria that comprise a resident microflora, only revealed by EUC. Hence, the use of EUC instead of SUC in a routine setting would result in more sensitive but less specific results, requiring critical interpretation. In our view, EUC should be reserved for limited indications.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 3 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 37 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 37 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 8 22%
Other 4 11%
Student > Ph. D. Student 4 11%
Student > Bachelor 3 8%
Professor 3 8%
Other 8 22%
Unknown 7 19%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 12 32%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 7 19%
Immunology and Microbiology 2 5%
Environmental Science 1 3%
Nursing and Health Professions 1 3%
Other 6 16%
Unknown 8 22%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 9. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 21 April 2017.
All research outputs
#4,122,492
of 24,885,505 outputs
Outputs from European Journal of Clinical Microbiology & Infectious Diseases
#349
of 2,951 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#62,680
of 313,940 outputs
Outputs of similar age from European Journal of Clinical Microbiology & Infectious Diseases
#6
of 46 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 24,885,505 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 83rd percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 2,951 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 6.8. This one has done well, scoring higher than 88% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 313,940 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done well, scoring higher than 79% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 46 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 89% of its contemporaries.