Smarter Decisions,
Better Care

UpToDate synthesizes the most recent medical information into evidence-based practical recommendations clinicians trust to make the right point-of-care decisions.

  • Rigorous editorial process: Evidence-based treatment recommendations
  • World-Renowned physician authors: over 5,100 physician authors and editors around the globe
  • Innovative technology: integrates into the workflow; access from EMRs

Choose from the list below to learn more about subscriptions for a:

Subscribers log in here

Urine collection techniques in children


Urinary tract infections (UTIs) are an important cause of acute and chronic morbidity in children. Long-term complications include hypertension and decreased renal function caused by renal scarring. The accurate diagnosis of UTI in children is necessary to ensure appropriate therapy and follow-up for those who need it, and to avoid unnecessary therapy, hospital admission, and further evaluation in those who do not. The manner in which urine is collected and processed before it is cultured can affect the validity of the culture result.

Children who are toilet trained can provide clean voided urine samples. Samples of urine from children who are not toilet trained can be obtained by "clean voided" bag samples, suprapubic bladder aspiration (SPA), or transurethral bladder catheterization (TUBC). SPA and TUBC are invasive but are the only valid ways to collect urine for culture in febrile young infants under two months of age and older infants and children with unexplained fever who are younger than two years of age and ill enough to merit immediate antimicrobial therapy [1].

The procedures for obtaining and processing urine samples in children are reviewed here. The diagnosis, treatment, and subsequent evaluation of UTIs in newborns and children are discussed separately. (See "Urinary tract infections in neonates" and "Urinary tract infections in infants and children older than one month: Clinical features and diagnosis" and "Urinary tract infections in infants and children older than one month: Acute management, imaging, and prognosis" and "Urinary tract infections in children: Long-term management and prevention".)


The practice of obtaining urine specimens by the "clean voided" bag appeals to medical staff and parents because it is noninvasive. However, it should not be used to obtain urine samples for culture [1]. Appropriate collection of clean voided bag urine samples requires proper cleansing, rinsing, and drying of the perineum before application of the bag, immediate removal of the bag after urine is voided, and prompt processing of the urine.

Cultures of urine specimens obtained by clean voided bag have an unacceptably high rate of false positive results compared with catheterized specimens [2-4]. As an example, in an observational study of 7584 children younger than two years) undergoing urine collection for culture, 63 percent of clean voided bag specimens were contaminated compared with 9 percent of catheter specimens (63 percent versus 9 percent [2]. An adverse outcome (delayed diagnosis and treatment, unnecessary recall, unnecessary treatment, unnecessary hospital admission, and/or unnecessary radiologic investigation) occurred in 132 of the 3440 children who had a false positive urine culture.


Subscribers log in here

To continue reading this article, you must log in with your personal, hospital, or group practice subscription. For more information or to purchase a personal subscription, click below on the option that best describes you:
Literature review current through: Oct 2014. | This topic last updated: Sep 26, 2013.
The content on the UpToDate website is not intended nor recommended as a substitute for medical advice, diagnosis, or treatment. Always seek the advice of your own physician or other qualified health care professional regarding any medical questions or conditions. The use of this website is governed by the UpToDate Terms of Use ©2014 UpToDate, Inc.
  1. Practice parameter: the diagnosis, treatment, and evaluation of the initial urinary tract infection in febrile infants and young children. American Academy of Pediatrics. Committee on Quality Improvement. Subcommittee on Urinary Tract Infection. Pediatrics 1999; 103:843.
  2. Al-Orifi F, McGillivray D, Tange S, Kramer MS. Urine culture from bag specimens in young children: are the risks too high? J Pediatr 2000; 137:221.
  3. Tosif S, Baker A, Oakley E, et al. Contamination rates of different urine collection methods for the diagnosis of urinary tract infections in young children: an observational cohort study. J Paediatr Child Health 2012; 48:659.
  4. Karacan C, Erkek N, Senel S, et al. Evaluation of urine collection methods for the diagnosis of urinary tract infection in children. Med Princ Pract 2010; 19:188.
  5. Vaillancourt S, McGillivray D, Zhang X, Kramer MS. To clean or not to clean: effect on contamination rates in midstream urine collections in toilet-trained children. Pediatrics 2007; 119:e1288.
  6. Ruddy RM. Illustrated techniques of pediatric emergency procedures. In: Textbook of Pediatric Emergency Medicine, 5th, Fleisher GR, Ludwig S, Henretig FM. (Eds), Lippincott Williams & Wilkins, Philadelphia 2006. p.1861.
  7. Pollack CV Jr, Pollack ES, Andrew ME. Suprapubic bladder aspiration versus urethral catheterization in ill infants: success, efficiency and complication rates. Ann Emerg Med 1994; 23:225.
  8. Stamm WE, Wagner KF, Amsel R, et al. Causes of the acute urethral syndrome in women. N Engl J Med 1980; 303:409.
  9. PRYLES CV, ATKIN MD, MORSE TS, WELCH KJ. Comparative bacteriologic study of urine obtained from children by percutaneous suprapubic aspiration of the bladder and by catheter. Pediatrics 1959; 24:983.
  10. Hardy JD, Furnell PM, Brumfitt W. Comparison of sterile bag, clean catch and suprapubic aspiration in the diagnosis of urinary infection in early childhood. Br J Urol 1976; 48:279.
  11. King C, Henretig FM. Bladder catheterization and suprapubic bladder aspiration. In: Pocket Atlas of Pediatric Emergnecy Procedures, King C, Henretig FM. (Eds), Lippincott Williams and Wilkins, Philadelphia 2000. p.257.
  13. Hertz AL. Urinary tract infection. In: Pediatric Emergency Medicine Concepts and Clinical Practice, 2nd, Barkin R. (Ed), Mosby, St. Louis 1997. p.1164.
  14. Gochman RF, Karasic RB, Heller MB. Use of portable ultrasound to assist urine collection by suprapubic aspiration. Ann Emerg Med 1991; 20:631.
  15. Carlson KP, Pullon DH. Bladder hemorrhage following transcutaneous bladder aspiration. Pediatrics 1977; 60:765.
  16. Saccharow L, Pryles CV. Further experience with the use of percutaneous suprapubic aspiration of the urinary bladder. Bacteriologic studies in 654 infants and children. Pediatrics 1969; 43:1018.
  17. Polnay L, Fraser AM, Lewis JM. Complication of suprapubic bladder aspiration. Arch Dis Child 1975; 50:80.
  18. Weathers WT, Wenzl JE. Suprapubic aspiration of the bladder. Perforation of a viscus other than the bladder. Am J Dis Child 1969; 117:590.
  19. Wingerter S, Bachur R. Risk factors for contamination of catheterized urine specimens in febrile children. Pediatr Emerg Care 2011; 27:1.
  20. Gerard LL, Cooper CS, Duethman KS, et al. Effectiveness of lidocaine lubricant for discomfort during pediatric urethral catheterization. J Urol 2003; 170:564.
  21. Vaughan M, Paton EA, Bush A, Pershad J. Does lidocaine gel alleviate the pain of bladder catheterization in young children? A randomized, controlled trial. Pediatrics 2005; 116:917.
  22. Dayan PS, Chamberlain JM, Boenning D, et al. A comparison of the initial to the later stream urine in children catheterized to evaluate for a urinary tract infection. Pediatr Emerg Care 2000; 16:88.
  23. Chen L, Hsiao AL, Moore CL, et al. Utility of bedside bladder ultrasound before urethral catheterization in young children. Pediatrics 2005; 115:108.
  24. Tobiansky R, Evans N. A randomized controlled trial of two methods for collection of sterile urine in neonates. J Paediatr Child Health 1998; 34:460.