Validity of a portable urine refractometer: The effects of sample freezing

Andy Sparks, G L Close

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

15 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

The use of portable urine osmometers is widespread, but no studies have assessed the validity of this measurement technique. Furthermore, it is unclear what effect freezing has on osmolality. One-hundred participants of mean (±SD) age 25.1 ± 7.6 years, height 1.77 ± 0.1 m and weight 77.1 ± 10.8 kg provided single urine samples that were analysed using freeze point depression (FPD) and refractometry (RI). Samples were then frozen at −80°C (n = 81) and thawed prior to re-analysis. Differences between methods and freezing were determined using Wilcoxon's signed rank test. Relationships between measurements were assessed using intraclass correlation coefficients (ICC) and typical error of estimate (TE). Osmolality was lower (P = 0.001) using RI (634.2 ± 339.8 mOsm · kgH2O−1) compared with FPD (656.7 ± 334.1 mOsm · kgH2O−1) but the TE was trivial (0.17). Freezing significantly reduced mean osmolality using FPD (656.7 ± 341.1 to 606.5 ± 333.4 mOsm · kgH2O−1; P < 0.001), but samples were still highly related following freezing (ICC, r = 0.979, P < 0.001, CI = 0.993–0.997; TE = 0.15; and r=0.995, P < 0.001, CI = 0.967–0.986; TE = 0.07 for RI and FPD respectively). Despite mean differences between methods and as a result of freezing, such differences are physiologically trivial. Therefore, the use of RI appears to be a valid measurement tool to determine urine osmolality
Original languageEnglish
Pages (from-to)745-749
JournalJournal of Sports Sciences
Volume31
Issue number7
DOIs
Publication statusPublished - 2013

Fingerprint

Freezing
Osmolar Concentration
Urine
Refractometry
Weights and Measures

Cite this

@article{74fcab5689a64843a317c84f71894dc5,
title = "Validity of a portable urine refractometer: The effects of sample freezing",
abstract = "The use of portable urine osmometers is widespread, but no studies have assessed the validity of this measurement technique. Furthermore, it is unclear what effect freezing has on osmolality. One-hundred participants of mean (±SD) age 25.1 ± 7.6 years, height 1.77 ± 0.1 m and weight 77.1 ± 10.8 kg provided single urine samples that were analysed using freeze point depression (FPD) and refractometry (RI). Samples were then frozen at −80°C (n = 81) and thawed prior to re-analysis. Differences between methods and freezing were determined using Wilcoxon's signed rank test. Relationships between measurements were assessed using intraclass correlation coefficients (ICC) and typical error of estimate (TE). Osmolality was lower (P = 0.001) using RI (634.2 ± 339.8 mOsm · kgH2O−1) compared with FPD (656.7 ± 334.1 mOsm · kgH2O−1) but the TE was trivial (0.17). Freezing significantly reduced mean osmolality using FPD (656.7 ± 341.1 to 606.5 ± 333.4 mOsm · kgH2O−1; P < 0.001), but samples were still highly related following freezing (ICC, r = 0.979, P < 0.001, CI = 0.993–0.997; TE = 0.15; and r=0.995, P < 0.001, CI = 0.967–0.986; TE = 0.07 for RI and FPD respectively). Despite mean differences between methods and as a result of freezing, such differences are physiologically trivial. Therefore, the use of RI appears to be a valid measurement tool to determine urine osmolality",
author = "Andy Sparks and Close, {G L}",
year = "2013",
doi = "10.1080/02640414.2012.747693",
language = "English",
volume = "31",
pages = "745--749",
journal = "Journal of Sports Sciences",
issn = "0264-0414",
publisher = "Taylor & Francis",
number = "7",

}

Validity of a portable urine refractometer: The effects of sample freezing. / Sparks, Andy; Close, G L.

In: Journal of Sports Sciences, Vol. 31, No. 7, 2013, p. 745-749.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

TY - JOUR

T1 - Validity of a portable urine refractometer: The effects of sample freezing

AU - Sparks, Andy

AU - Close, G L

PY - 2013

Y1 - 2013

N2 - The use of portable urine osmometers is widespread, but no studies have assessed the validity of this measurement technique. Furthermore, it is unclear what effect freezing has on osmolality. One-hundred participants of mean (±SD) age 25.1 ± 7.6 years, height 1.77 ± 0.1 m and weight 77.1 ± 10.8 kg provided single urine samples that were analysed using freeze point depression (FPD) and refractometry (RI). Samples were then frozen at −80°C (n = 81) and thawed prior to re-analysis. Differences between methods and freezing were determined using Wilcoxon's signed rank test. Relationships between measurements were assessed using intraclass correlation coefficients (ICC) and typical error of estimate (TE). Osmolality was lower (P = 0.001) using RI (634.2 ± 339.8 mOsm · kgH2O−1) compared with FPD (656.7 ± 334.1 mOsm · kgH2O−1) but the TE was trivial (0.17). Freezing significantly reduced mean osmolality using FPD (656.7 ± 341.1 to 606.5 ± 333.4 mOsm · kgH2O−1; P < 0.001), but samples were still highly related following freezing (ICC, r = 0.979, P < 0.001, CI = 0.993–0.997; TE = 0.15; and r=0.995, P < 0.001, CI = 0.967–0.986; TE = 0.07 for RI and FPD respectively). Despite mean differences between methods and as a result of freezing, such differences are physiologically trivial. Therefore, the use of RI appears to be a valid measurement tool to determine urine osmolality

AB - The use of portable urine osmometers is widespread, but no studies have assessed the validity of this measurement technique. Furthermore, it is unclear what effect freezing has on osmolality. One-hundred participants of mean (±SD) age 25.1 ± 7.6 years, height 1.77 ± 0.1 m and weight 77.1 ± 10.8 kg provided single urine samples that were analysed using freeze point depression (FPD) and refractometry (RI). Samples were then frozen at −80°C (n = 81) and thawed prior to re-analysis. Differences between methods and freezing were determined using Wilcoxon's signed rank test. Relationships between measurements were assessed using intraclass correlation coefficients (ICC) and typical error of estimate (TE). Osmolality was lower (P = 0.001) using RI (634.2 ± 339.8 mOsm · kgH2O−1) compared with FPD (656.7 ± 334.1 mOsm · kgH2O−1) but the TE was trivial (0.17). Freezing significantly reduced mean osmolality using FPD (656.7 ± 341.1 to 606.5 ± 333.4 mOsm · kgH2O−1; P < 0.001), but samples were still highly related following freezing (ICC, r = 0.979, P < 0.001, CI = 0.993–0.997; TE = 0.15; and r=0.995, P < 0.001, CI = 0.967–0.986; TE = 0.07 for RI and FPD respectively). Despite mean differences between methods and as a result of freezing, such differences are physiologically trivial. Therefore, the use of RI appears to be a valid measurement tool to determine urine osmolality

U2 - 10.1080/02640414.2012.747693

DO - 10.1080/02640414.2012.747693

M3 - Article

VL - 31

SP - 745

EP - 749

JO - Journal of Sports Sciences

JF - Journal of Sports Sciences

SN - 0264-0414

IS - 7

ER -