| Literature DB >> 29928640 |
Laura Walawender1, Jeremy Patterson2, Robert Strouse2, John Ketz3, Vijay Saxena4, Emily Alexy5, Andrew Schwaderer4.
Abstract
Objectives: Low hydration has a deleterious effect on many conditions. In the absence of a urine concentrating defect, urine concentration is a marker of hydration status. However, markers to evaluate hydration status have not been well studied in children. The objectives of this paper are to compare measures of thirst and urine concentration in children and to develop a novel mobile technology application to measure urine concentration. Study Design: Children age 12-17 years were selected (n = 21) for this pilot study. Thirst perception, specific gravity (automated dipstick analysis and refractometer), and urine color scale results were correlated to urine osmolality. The technology department developed a mobile technology camera application to measure light penetrance into urine which was tested on 25 random anonymized urine samples.Entities:
Keywords: cell phone apps; hydration; specific gravity; thirst; urine colors
Year: 2018 PMID: 29928640 PMCID: PMC5998741 DOI: 10.3389/fped.2018.00160
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Front Pediatr ISSN: 2296-2360 Impact factor: 3.418
Figure 1Linear regression with best fit (solid line) and 95% confidence intervals (dashed lines) for urine osmolality vs. thirst perception (A), specific gravity (SG) by refractometer (B) SG by Clinitek automated urine dipstick reader (C), Urine color scale patient (D), Urine color scale research team (RT) members 1–4 (E–H).
Correlations between hydration markers and urine osmolality.
| Thirst perception | 21 | −0.24 | 0.30 | −0.20 | 0.40 |
| SG: refractometer | 21 | 0.98 | 0.94 | ||
| SG: Clinitek | 21 | 0.61 | 0.55 | ||
| Color scale: Pt | 21 | 0.37 | 0.10 | 0.25 | 0.26 |
| Color scale: RT1 | 21 | 0.56 | 0.46 | ||
| Color scale: RT2 | 21 | 0.51 | 0.46 | ||
| Color scale: RT3 | 21 | 0.30 | 0.19 | 0.26 | 0.25 |
| Color scale: RT4 | 21 | 0.16 | 0.49 | 0.08 | 0.74 |
Statistically significant.
Bold values are statistically significant.
Figure 2(A) Left panel, a dilute urine sample results in in increased light penetrance and increased diameter of camera flash. The camera flash is being used to illustrate light penetrance, but was not directly measured for the mobile technology application. Right panel, a concentrated urine sample results in decreased light penetrance and decreased diameter of camera flash. (B) The correlation between urine concentration, camera flash diameter (arrow) and light penetrance is demonstrated. (C) Full-frame with sub-image extraction. (D) Capture and analysis workflow. (E) An example of the urine collection container (arrow) and ipod (#) in the 3D printed adaptor (asterisk), (to standardize for variable room light levels and distance from camera to urine sample). (F) Linear regression with best fit (solid line) and 95% confidence intervals (dashed lines) for urine osmolality vs. light penetrance as measured by the mobile technology application. (G) Spearman and Pearson's correlations and associated p values for correlation between light penetrance and urine osmolality.
Strength of correlation between light penetrance and osmolality compared to correlation between other hydration markers and urine osmolality.
| SG: refractometer | Stronger | ||
| SG: Clintek | 0.33 | 0.15 | Nonsignificant trend weaker |
| Color scale: Pt | Weaker | ||
| Color scale: RT1 | 0.22 | 0.07 | Nonsignificant trend weaker |
| Color scale: RT2 | 0.15 | 0.07 | Nonsignificant trend weaker |
| Color scale: RT3 | Weaker | ||
| Color scale: RT4 | Weaker | ||
| Thirst perception | Weaker |
Statistically significant.
p-value = 0.0466, therefore assigned significance even though it rounds to 0.05.
Bold values are statistically significant.