Urine collection is a very painstaking step, because if there is a poor procedure in this phase, as well as: insufficient hygiene, collection error, poor material conditioning and delay in the transportation of the material to the laboratory, will directly influence the final result of the sample and consequently generate false-positive or false-negative results. OBJECTIVE: To analyze the main doubts on the part of the patients regarding the uroculture examination. METHODS: The bibliographical survey was performed through the Internet through the Virtual Health Library (VHL), LILACS (Latin American Literature in Health Science) and SciELO (Scientific Electronic Library Online). In the data search the following descriptors were used to refine the sample: Uroculture, Urinary infection and EAS. The inclusion criteria for the selection of the sample were: temporal dimension between 2010 and 2017 and that approached the theme. We excluded articles that did not include the objective of the study, which were published before 2010. RESULTS: It was observed that of the fourteen articles analyzed, all cited information related to the diagnosis, causes and treatments for urinary infections. However, twelve of the fourteen (85.71%) did not discuss ways or protocols that would assist the patient in the preanalytic phase, which incurs the collection, storage and transport of the material to be analyzed. FINAL CONSIDERATIONS: It is necessary to implement activities that aim at the training and education of all the professionals involved in the processes that precede the analysis of the material. We conclude that pre-analytical errors will always exist, but they can be minimized with the support of quality control strategies adopted by everyone working in the clinical laboratory.