Comparison microbiological indices in spontaneous voided urine or urine obtained from incontinence material

This dataset belongs to the PROGRESS study (diagnosing urine tract infections in elderly nursing home residents)<br>The data are for a comparison of urine culture and urine dipstick results in urine that is spontaneously voided or obtained from incontinence material. <br>Obtaining a urine specimen for diagnosis is often a challenge in this population. If urine obtained from incontinence material could be used instead, this would make it possible that UTI treatment is started more frequently based on a proper microbiological evidence, rather than empirically. <br>We performed a laboratory-based non-inferiority study comparing these two sources of urine with regards to the presence of uropathogens in the culture, the number of colony counts in the culture, and the semi-quantitive results of the dipstick test (leucocytes and nitrite).<br>Urine specimens were randomly sampled from routine specimens present in a single bacteriology laboratory in a tertiary hospital. Specimens were used within 24 hours of voiding. Remnants of the urine (10 ml) were poured on incontinence material, incubated for 3 hours, after which dissected material was added to 9 ml of sterile water, and vortexed for 10 seconds. Bacterial cultures were conducted using routine procedures in which bacterial growth was assessed after overnight incubation, and species were identified though Maldi-tof mass spectrometry. Dipstick analysis used Combur2 from Roche.<br>Data structureThe file is in a .cvs format outputted through STATA version 16.0. The dataset is organised in the long format. The variable “pair” links the two urine sources. <br>CodebookThe file is in a .xlsx format. It lists the variables present in the database with their type, description, categorisation, and additional comments where applicable.<br>

本数据集隶属于PROGRESS研究（养老机构老年居民尿路感染诊断研究）。
本数据集用于对比自发排尿或取自失禁采集材料的尿液样本的尿培养（urine culture）与尿液干化学试带（urine dipstick）检测结果。
在该研究人群中，获取用于诊断的尿液样本往往是一项挑战。若可改用取自失禁采集材料的尿液样本，则有望让临床医师更频繁地基于可靠的微生物学证据启动尿路感染（urinary tract infection, UTI）治疗，而非仅凭经验用药。
本研究为基于实验室的非劣效性研究（non-inferiority study），对比了两种尿液来源的以下指标：培养物中的尿病原体（uropathogens）检出情况、培养物中的菌落计数（colony counts），以及干化学试带检测的半定量结果（白细胞（leucocytes）与亚硝酸盐（nitrite））。
尿液样本从某三级医院（tertiary hospital）单一细菌学实验室（bacteriology laboratory）的常规送检样本中随机抽取。所有样本均在排尿后24小时内完成检测。将剩余10ml尿液滴加至失禁采集材料上，孵育3小时；随后将处理后的材料加入9ml无菌水中，涡旋振荡10秒。细菌培养采用常规流程：经过夜孵育后评估细菌生长情况，并通过MALDI-TOF质谱（Maldi-tof mass spectrometry）鉴定菌种。干化学试带检测采用罗氏（Roche）Combur2试剂。
数据结构：本数据集文件为通过STATA 16.0导出的.csv格式文件，采用长格式（long format）组织。变量"pair"用于关联两份不同来源的尿液样本。
代码本：该文件为.xlsx格式，列明了数据库中所有变量的类型、含义、分类规则及适用情况下的附加说明。