Use of a midstream clean catch mobile application did not lower urine contamination rates in an ED

Objectives

Urine microscopy is a common test performed in emergency departments (EDs). Urine specimens can easily become contaminated by different factors, including the collection method. The midstream clean-catch (MSCC) collection technique is commonly used to reduce urine contamination. The urine culture contamination rate from specimens collected in our ED is 30%. We developed an instructional application (app) to show ED patients how to provide a MSCC urine sample. We hypothesized that ED patients who viewed our instructional app would have significantly lower urine contamination rates compared to patients who did not.

Generation of a Novel In Vitro Model to Study Endothelial Dysfunction from Atherothrombotic Specimens

Cardiovascular Drugs and Therapy - Endothelial dysfunction is central to the pathogenesis of acute coronary syndrome. The study of diseased endothelium is very challenging due to inherent...     

Determinants of ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction as clinical presentation of acute coronary syndrome

Journal of Thrombosis and Thrombolysis - Antiplatelet agents and statin therapies are widely used in patients with known cardiovascular disease. Plaque rupture (PR) and plaque erosion (PE) are the...     

Recommendations for probiotic use--2008

Recommendations for the clinical use of probiotics were published after a Yale University Workshop in 2005. A similar workshop was held in 2007, and the recommendations were updated and extended into other areas. The recommendations are graded into an "A," "B," "C" or no category based on the expert's opinion and review by the workshop participants. An "A" recommendation is made for acute childhood diarrhea, prevention of antibiotic-associated diarrhea, preventing and maintaining remission in pouchitis, and in an immune response for the treatment and prevention of atopic eczema associated with cow's milk allergy. The group maintained several "B" recommendations in other areas of treating inflammatory bowel disease and irritable bowel syndrome. Although there are significant studies in the "B" group, most "B" recommendations did not reach an "A" level because of some negative studies or a limited number of studies. Many reports in the "C" recommendations were significant but fell short of receiving stronger ratings because of the size of reported patient studies, and also the factors that limited categories to the "B" rating.