Literature DB >> 25036786

What is the best method to evaluate urine pH? A trial of three urinary pH measurement methods in a stone clinic.

Rebecca Ilyas1, Karyee Chow, J Graham Young.   

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Monitoring of urinary pH is an important part of the assessment of patients with urinary tract stones. It provides valuable information about the future stone risk of certain patients and further allows the effective tailoring of medical intervention. Accurate measurement is therefore essential in these patients.
OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this study was to determine the most accurate method of measuring urinary pH in an outpatient setting. Materials, Methods, and Participants: Urine samples were collected from 200 patients attending stone clinics at The University Hospital of South Manchester. pH was measured by three commonly used methods: Siemens Clinitek Status pH meter, a hand-held pH meter, and litmus paper read visually. Results were compared with readings simultaneously obtained from a bench-top laboratory pH machine, which is the reference method for pH measurement. STATISTICAL ANALYSIS: The pH readings obtained were analyzed using the Bland-Altman plot. RESULTS AND LIMITATIONS: When compared with the reference method, the hand-held pH meter differed the least with a mean bias of 0.0073 and a maximum under-read of -0.2 pH units and maximum over-read of +0.2 pH units. The Siemens Clinitek pH meter differed most with a mean bias of -0.108, with a maximum over-read of +0.99 pH units and a maximum under-read of 0.78 pH units. The pH values obtained with the litmus paper gave similar results to that of the Clinitek pH meter with a mean bias of -0.069, with a maximum over-read of 0.96 and maximum under-read of 0.82 pH units.
CONCLUSION: The hand-held pH device gave urinary pH readings that most closely and consistently matched those of the reference bench-top laboratory machine. This method of pH measurement should be considered in stone clinics in patients with pH-dependent stone risk.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2015        PMID: 25036786     DOI: 10.1089/end.2014.0317

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Endourol        ISSN: 0892-7790            Impact factor:   2.942


  4 in total

1.  Fluorometric sensing of pH values using green-emitting black phosphorus quantum dots.

Authors:  Qiaoli Yue; Yingying Hu; Lixia Tao; Baoqian Zhang; Chen Liu; Yongping Wang; Chunying Chen; Jinsheng Zhao; Chen-Zhong Li
Journal:  Mikrochim Acta       Date:  2019-08-22       Impact factor: 5.833

2.  Impact of the adherence to medical treatment on the main urinary metabolic disorders in patients with kidney stones.

Authors:  Braulio Omar Manzo; Jose David Cabrera; Esteban Emiliani; Hector Manuel Sánchez; Brian Howard Eisner; Jose Ernesto Torres
Journal:  Asian J Urol       Date:  2020-08-06

3.  Optimization of urinary dipstick pH: Are multiple dipstick pH readings reliably comparable to commercial 24-hour urinary pH?

Authors:  Joel E Abbott; Daniel L Miller; William Shi; David Wenzler; Fuad F Elkhoury; Nishant D Patel; Roger L Sur
Journal:  Investig Clin Urol       Date:  2017-07-24

4.  Analytical verification of 12 most commonly used urine dipsticks in Croatia: comparability, repeatability and accuracy.

Authors:  Dora Vuljanić; Ana Dojder; Valentina Špoljarić; Andrea Saračević; Lora Dukić; Jasna Leniček-Krleža; Jelena Vlašić-Tanasković; Ivana Maradin; Ana Grzunov; Željka Vogrinc; Ana-Maria Šimundić
Journal:  Biochem Med (Zagreb)       Date:  2019-02-15       Impact factor: 2.313

  4 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.