A comparative study of efficacy of 2-, 3- and 4-glass tests in patients with chronic prostatitis

Full Text


To compare informative value of three tests (2-, 3- and 4-glass) in diagnosis of prostatitis we examined 177 patients with chronic prostatitis (CP) who were randomized into 4 groups. Group 1 patients (n = 33) were examined with standard 4-glass test (Mearls and Stamey), patients of subgroup 2a (n = 42) were examined with 2-glass test before finger rectal test (FRT), FRT was made in subgroup 2b (n = 45) before urine collection (2 portions), group 3 (n = 57) was examined by an original technique proposed by the authors. While performing the latter test special focus was given to urination continuity, then the secretion obtained at FRT was studied. Efficacy of each of the tests was assessed by comfort of the procedure for the patient and the doctor, a proportion of false-positive results. The 3-glass test proved most informative and significant. Also, it is sensitive in detection of urogenital tuberculosis. The 4-glass test is not comfortable for both the patient and the doctor. The 2-glass test often produced false-positive results.


  1. Meares E. M. Jr., Stamey T. A. Bacteriologic localization patterns in bacterial prostatitis and urethritis. Invest. Urol. 1968; 5: 492.
  2. Guidelines on urinary and male genital tract infections / Naber K. G., Bergman B., Bishop M. C. et al. 2001. 53-55.
  3. Nickel J. Recommendations for the evaluation of patients with prostatitis. Wld J. Urol. 2003; 21 (2): 75-81.
  4. Лоран О. Б., Велиев Е. И., Живов А. В. Хронический простатит - одна болезнь? Урология 2009; 1: 70-75.
  5. Nickel J. C. Chronic prostatitis: current concepts and antimicrobial therapy. Infect. Urol. 2000; 13 (5a): s22-s28.
  6. McNauhgton-Collins M., Fowler F. J., Elliott D. B. et al. Diagnosing and treating chronic prostatitis: do urologists use the four-glass test? Urology 2000; 55: 403-407.

This website uses cookies

You consent to our cookies if you continue to use our website.

About Cookies