ArticleEuropean journal of applied physiology2014
Assessment of extracellular dehydration using saliva osmolality.
Article in European journal of applied physiology, 2014. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
5 citing papers in PubMed, 13 citations in OpenAlex.
- Fluid type influences acute hydration and muscle performance recovery in human subjects.Journal of the International Society of Sports Nutrition · 2019Trial
- Salivary diagnostic markers in males and females during rest and exercise.Journal of the International Society of Sports Nutrition · 2017Trial
- Evaluation and review of body fluids saliva, sweat and tear compared to biochemical hydration assessment markers within blood and urine.European journal of clinical nutrition · 2018Review
- Realising the Potential of Urine and Saliva as Diagnostic Tools in Sport and Exercise Medicine.Sports medicine (Auckland, N.Z.) · 2017Review
- The impact of post-exercise hydration with deep-ocean mineral water on rehydration and exercise performance.Journal of the International Society of Sports Nutrition · 2016Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors at 5 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionWhen substantial solute losses accompany body water an isotonic hypovolemia (extracellular dehydration) results. The potential for using blood or urine to assess extracellular dehydration is generally poor, but saliva is not a simple ultra-filtrate of plasma and the autonomic regulation of salivary gland function suggests the possibility that saliva osmolality (Sosm) may afford detection of extracellular dehydration via the influence of volume-mediated factors. PURPOSE: This study aimed to evaluate the assessment of extracellular dehydration using Sosm. In addition, two common saliva collection methods and their effects on Sosm were compared.
methodsBlood, urine, and saliva samples were collected in 24 healthy volunteers during paired euhydration and dehydration trials. Furosemide administration and 12 h fluid restriction were used to produce extracellular dehydration. Expectoration and salivette collection methods were compared in a separate group of eight euhydrated volunteers. All comparisons were made using paired t-tests. The diagnostic potential of body fluids was additionally evaluated.
resultsDehydration (3.1 ± 0.5% loss of body mass) decreased PV (-0.49 ± 0.12 L; -15.12 ± 3.94% change), but Sosm changes were marginal (<10 mmol/kg) and weakly correlated with changes in absolute or relative PV losses. Overall diagnostic accuracy was poor (AUC = 0.77-0.78) for all body fluids evaluated. Strong agreement was observed between Sosm methods (Expectoration: 61 ± 10 mmol/kg, Salivette: 61 ± 8 mmol/kg, p > 0.05).
conclusionsExtracelluar dehydration was not detectable using plasma, urine, or saliva measures. Salivette and expectoration sampling methods produced similar, consistent results for Sosm, suggesting no methodological influence on Sosm.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.