Event Title
Comparison of Common Field/Clinical Measures to Standard Laboratory Measures of Hydration Status
Document Type
Event
Keywords
urine color, urine reagent strip, urine specific gravity
Description
Context: Accurately determining hydration status is a preventative measure for exertional heat illnesses (EHI).
Objective: To determine the validity of various field measures of urine specific gravity (Usg) compared to laboratory instruments.
Design: Observational research design to compare measures of hydration status: urine reagent strips (URS) and a urine color (Ucol) chart to a refractometer. Setting: We utilized the athletic training room of a Division I-A collegiate American football team.
Participants: Trial 1 involved urine samples of 69 veteran football players (age=20.1+1.2yr; body mass=229.7+44.4lb; height=72.2+2.1in). Trial 2 involved samples from 5 football players (age=20.4+0.5yr; body mass=261.4+39.2lb; height=72.3+2.3in).
Interventions: We administered the Heat Illness Index Score (HIIS) Risk Assessment, to identify athletes at-risk for EHI (Trial 1). For individuals “at-risk” (Trial 2), we collected urine samples before and after 15 days of pre-season “two-a-day” practices in a hot, humid environment(mean on-field WBGT=28.84+2.36oC).
Main Outcome Measures: Urine samples were immediately analyzed for Usg using a refractometer, Diascreen 7® (URS1), Multistix® (URS2), and Chemstrip10® (URS3). Ucol was measured using Ucol chart. We calculated descriptive statistics for all main measures; Pearson correlations to assess relationships between the refractometer, each URS, and Ucol, and transformed Ucol data to Z-scores for comparison to the refractometer.
Results: In Trial 1, we found a moderate relationship (r=0.491, p<.01) between URS1 (1.020+0.006μg) and the refractometer (1.026+0.010μg). In Trial 2, we found marked relationships for Ucol (5.6+1.6shades, r=0.619, p<0.01), URS2 (1.019+0.008μg, r=0.712, p<0.01), and URS3 (1.022+0.007μg, r=0.689, p<0.01) compared to the refractometer (1.028+0.008μg).
Conclusions: Our findings suggest that URS were inconsistent between manufacturers, suggesting practitioners use the clinical refractometer to accurately determine Usg and monitor hydration status.
Identifier
FIDC005640
Comparison of Common Field/Clinical Measures to Standard Laboratory Measures of Hydration Status
Context: Accurately determining hydration status is a preventative measure for exertional heat illnesses (EHI).
Objective: To determine the validity of various field measures of urine specific gravity (Usg) compared to laboratory instruments.
Design: Observational research design to compare measures of hydration status: urine reagent strips (URS) and a urine color (Ucol) chart to a refractometer. Setting: We utilized the athletic training room of a Division I-A collegiate American football team.
Participants: Trial 1 involved urine samples of 69 veteran football players (age=20.1+1.2yr; body mass=229.7+44.4lb; height=72.2+2.1in). Trial 2 involved samples from 5 football players (age=20.4+0.5yr; body mass=261.4+39.2lb; height=72.3+2.3in).
Interventions: We administered the Heat Illness Index Score (HIIS) Risk Assessment, to identify athletes at-risk for EHI (Trial 1). For individuals “at-risk” (Trial 2), we collected urine samples before and after 15 days of pre-season “two-a-day” practices in a hot, humid environment(mean on-field WBGT=28.84+2.36oC).
Main Outcome Measures: Urine samples were immediately analyzed for Usg using a refractometer, Diascreen 7® (URS1), Multistix® (URS2), and Chemstrip10® (URS3). Ucol was measured using Ucol chart. We calculated descriptive statistics for all main measures; Pearson correlations to assess relationships between the refractometer, each URS, and Ucol, and transformed Ucol data to Z-scores for comparison to the refractometer.
Results: In Trial 1, we found a moderate relationship (r=0.491, p<.01) between URS1 (1.020+0.006μg) and the refractometer (1.026+0.010μg). In Trial 2, we found marked relationships for Ucol (5.6+1.6shades, r=0.619, p<0.01), URS2 (1.019+0.008μg, r=0.712, p<0.01), and URS3 (1.022+0.007μg, r=0.689, p<0.01) compared to the refractometer (1.028+0.008μg).
Conclusions: Our findings suggest that URS were inconsistent between manufacturers, suggesting practitioners use the clinical refractometer to accurately determine Usg and monitor hydration status.