FRINK Linked Data Fragments server

Matches in SemOpenAlex for { <https://semopenalex.org/work/W3616059> ?p ?o ?g. }

• W3616059 abstract "Context: Although some instruments have been validated for clinical measure ofhydration status, new and currently invalid instruments are available for purchase andclinical use. Athletic trainers commonly use these instruments to assess hydration statusfor weight checks and body mass loss charts due to their ease of use. However, thevalidity of these popular instruments has not yet been established. Objective: Todetermine the validity of urine specific gravity (USG) for the assessment of hydrationstatus via the following instruments: handheld clinical refractometer, pen style digitalrefractometer, and midget urinometer as compared to the gold standard urine osmometer(OSMO). Design: Descriptive diagnostic validity study. Setting: Biochemical researchlaboratory. Patients or Other Participants: Healthy active men and women (n=108;mean age=22±4yrs; self reported height=174±20cm and mass=75±17kg) were recruitedamong faculty and students on a university campus. Interventions: The independentvariable was instrument type with four levels: osmometer, handheld clinicalrefractometer, pen style digital refractometer, and midget urinometer. After recruitment,participants completed an informed consent and a short health history questionnaire torule out any exclusionary criteria such as kidney disease or chronic urinary tractinfection. Participants were then given a clean standard urine cup and asked to provide asmuch sample as possible, providing more than one cup when possible. Main Outcome Measures: Hydration status was measured by USG and OSM. USG was evaluated by ahandheld clinical refractometer, pen style digital refractometer, and midget urinometer.The gold standard OSM was calculated by a freezing point depression osmometer. Zscores were calculated for each instrument and Pearson product-moment correlationcoefficients were evaluated to examine the relationship between each instrument of USGand OSM. Results: Strong significant correlations were identified for the digitalrefractometer (r=0.814, p< 0.001) and handheld clinical refractometer (r=0.943, p<0.001) with OSM. A weak statistically insignificant correlation was established betweenthe midget urinometer (r=0.133, p< 0.142) and OSM. Average hydration status indicatedvariability among some of the instruments: digital refractometer USG=1.0194±0.0075,clinical refractometer USG=1.020±0.007, urinometer USG=1.028±0.091, osmometerOSM=743±271) Conclusions: Handheld clinical refractometry can be used confidentlyfor assessing hydration status as it shows a strong significant correlation with the goldstandard osmometer, which is consistent with previous literature. Additionally, the use ofthe pen style digital refractometer showed a strong, significant correlation with the goldstandard osmometer and provides clinicians with another option for the clinicalassessment of USG and hydration status. The findings of this also study suggest that theuse of a midget urinometer should be performed with extreme caution, as it showed aweak correlation with the…" @default.
• W3616059 created "2016-06-24" @default.
• W3616059 creator A5081418243 @default.
• W3616059 date "2012-10-18" @default.
• W3616059 modified "2023-09-23" @default.
• W3616059 title "The Effect of Instrument Type on the Measure of Hydration Status" @default.
• W3616059 cites W1610795244 @default.
• W3616059 cites W1910831618 @default.
• W3616059 cites W1976360779 @default.
• W3616059 cites W1987559380 @default.
• W3616059 cites W1995720654 @default.
• W3616059 cites W1998710623 @default.
• W3616059 cites W2023019046 @default.
• W3616059 cites W2046891890 @default.
• W3616059 cites W2088189581 @default.
• W3616059 cites W2095597739 @default.
• W3616059 cites W2105950035 @default.
• W3616059 cites W2108411330 @default.
• W3616059 cites W2111132326 @default.
• W3616059 cites W2111479538 @default.
• W3616059 cites W2114346788 @default.
• W3616059 cites W2116978263 @default.
• W3616059 cites W2121676661 @default.
• W3616059 cites W2124411358 @default.
• W3616059 cites W2125402260 @default.
• W3616059 cites W2145445983 @default.
• W3616059 cites W2146809193 @default.
• W3616059 cites W2151974875 @default.
• W3616059 cites W2158859101 @default.
• W3616059 cites W2164318876 @default.
• W3616059 cites W2165129567 @default.
• W3616059 cites W2169727187 @default.
• W3616059 cites W2475089013 @default.
• W3616059 cites W99752899 @default.
• W3616059 cites W2187601349 @default.
• W3616059 hasPublicationYear "2012" @default.
• W3616059 type Work @default.
• W3616059 sameAs 3616059 @default.
• W3616059 citedByCount "0" @default.
• W3616059 crossrefType "dissertation" @default.
• W3616059 hasAuthorship W3616059A5081418243 @default.
• W3616059 hasConcept C121332964 @default.
• W3616059 hasConcept C126322002 @default.
• W3616059 hasConcept C15744967 @default.
• W3616059 hasConcept C40993552 @default.
• W3616059 hasConcept C42067758 @default.
• W3616059 hasConcept C6043685 @default.
• W3616059 hasConcept C62520636 @default.
• W3616059 hasConcept C71924100 @default.
• W3616059 hasConceptScore W3616059C121332964 @default.
• W3616059 hasConceptScore W3616059C126322002 @default.
• W3616059 hasConceptScore W3616059C15744967 @default.
• W3616059 hasConceptScore W3616059C40993552 @default.
• W3616059 hasConceptScore W3616059C42067758 @default.
• W3616059 hasConceptScore W3616059C6043685 @default.
• W3616059 hasConceptScore W3616059C62520636 @default.
• W3616059 hasConceptScore W3616059C71924100 @default.
• W3616059 hasLocation W36160591 @default.
• W3616059 hasOpenAccess W3616059 @default.
• W3616059 hasPrimaryLocation W36160591 @default.
• W3616059 isParatext "false" @default.
• W3616059 isRetracted "false" @default.
• W3616059 magId "3616059" @default.
• W3616059 workType "dissertation" @default.