Evidence map›Paper›PMID 31207477›Full record

ArticleEnvironment international2019

A comparative assessment of dilution correction methods for spot urinary analyte concentrations in a UK population exposed to arsenic in drinking water.

Daniel R S Middleton, Michael J Watts, David A Polya

Open access · goldAbstract readComparative Study
In one paragraph

Article in Environment international, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 17 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
17citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
2.9field-weighted citation impact, top 9% of its field
1 · What the graph read from 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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

17 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 53 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Assessing the Impact of PMEnvironmental science & technology · 2024
    Article
  8. Characterization of multiple pesticide exposure in pregnant women in Brittany, France.Journal of exposure science & environmental epidemiology · 2024
    Article
  9. Exposure to heavy metalsmedRxiv : the preprint server for health sciences · 2023
    Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

3 authors at 3 institutions in 2 countries.

Daniel R S MiddletonSection of Environment and Radiation, International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC), Lyon, France. Electronic address: middletond@fellows.iarc.fr.
Michael J WattsInorganic Geochemistry, Centre for Environmental Geochemistry, British Geological Survey, Nottingham, UK.
David A PolyaSchool of Earth and Environmental Sciences & Williamson Research Centre for Molecular Environmental Science, University of Manchester, Manchester, UK.
British Geological Survey · GBCentre international de recherche sur le cancer · FRUniversity of Manchester · GB

Funding

World Health Organization 001
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Spot urinary concentrations of environmental exposure biomarkers require correction for dilution. There is no consensus on the most appropriate method, with creatinine used by default despite lacking theoretical robustness. We comparatively assessed the efficacy of creatinine; specific gravity (SG); osmolality and modifications of all three for dilution correcting urinary arsenic. For 202 participants with urinary arsenic, creatinine, osmolality and SG measurements paired to drinking water As, we compared the performance corrections against two independent criteria: primarily, (A) correlations of corrected urinary As and the dilution measurements used to correct them - weak correlations indicating good performance and (B) correlations of corrected urinary As and drinking water As - strong correlations indicating good performance. More than a third of variation in spot urinary As concentrations was attributable to dilution. Conventional SG and osmolality correction removed significant dilution variation from As concentrations, whereas conventional creatinine over-corrected, and modifications of all three removed measurable dilution variation. Modified creatinine and both methods of SG and osmolality generated stronger correlations of urinary and drinking water As concentrations than conventional creatinine, which gave weaker correlations than uncorrected values. A disparity in optima between performance criteria was observed, with much smaller improvements possible for Criterion B relative to A. Conventional corrections - particularly creatinine - limit the utility spot urine samples, whereas a modified technique outlined here may allow substantial improvement and can be readily retrospectively applied to existing datasets. More studies are needed to optimize urinary dilution correction methods. Covariates of urinary dilution measurements still warrant consideration.

Indexed as

ArsenicBiomarkersCreatinineDrinking WaterEnvironmental ExposureHumansSpecific GravityUnited KingdomUrinalysisArsenicBiomarkersCreatinineDrinking WaterArsenicBiomonitoringHydration correctionUrine

Identifiers

PMID31207477
PMCPMC6686075
OpenAlexW2951341116

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.