ArticleInvestigative and clinical urology2017
Optimization of urinary dipstick pH: Are multiple dipstick pH readings reliably comparable to commercial 24-hour urinary pH?
Article in Investigative and clinical urology, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.
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
4 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Role, Cost, and Availably of Urinary pH Monitoring for Kidney Stone Disease-A Systematic Review of the Literature.Current urology reports · 2023Pooled it
- Development of a Quantitative Digital Urinalysis Tool for Detection of Nitrite, Protein, Creatinine, and pH.Biosensors · 2024Article
- Analytical verification of 12 most commonly used urine dipsticks in Croatia: comparability, repeatability and accuracy.Biochemia medica · 2019Article
- Bringing the lab home: Evaluating the clinical accuracy of five urinary pH devices for stone prevention.Urology annalsArticle
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.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeAccurate measurement of pH is necessary to guide medical management of nephrolithiasis. Urinary dipsticks offer a convenient method to measure pH, but prior studies have only assessed the accuracy of a single, spot dipstick. Given the known diurnal variation in pH, a single dipstick pH is unlikely to reflect the average daily urinary pH. Our goal was to determine whether multiple dipstick pH readings would be reliably comparable to pH from a 24-hour urine analysis. MATERIALS AND
methodsKidney stone patients undergoing a 24-hour urine collection were enrolled and took images of dipsticks from their first 3 voids concurrently with the 24-hour collection. Images were sent to and read by a study investigator. The individual and mean pH from the dipsticks were compared to the 24-hour urine pH and considered to be accurate if the dipstick readings were within 0.5 of the 24-hour urine pH. The Bland-Altman test of agreement was used to further compare dipstick pH relative to 24-hour urine pH.
resultsFifty-nine percent of patients had mean urinary pH values within 0.5 pH units of their 24-hour urine pH. Bland-Altman analysis showed a mean difference between dipstick pH and 24-hour urine pH of -0.22, with an upper limit of agreement of 1.02 (95% confidence interval [CI], 0.45-1.59) and a lower limit of agreement of -1.47 (95% CI, -2.04 to -0.90).
conclusionsWe concluded that urinary dipstick based pH measurement lacks the precision required to guide medical management of nephrolithiasis and physicians should use 24-hour urine analysis to base their metabolic therapy.
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.