Evidence map›Paper›PMID 31394869›Full record

ArticleNutrients2019

Unexplained Variance in Hydration Study.

Colleen X Muñoz, Michael Wininger

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Nutrients, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
2citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
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

2 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. 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

2 authors.

Colleen X MuñozDepartment of Health Sciences and Nursing, University of Hartford, West Hartford, CT 06117, USA.
Michael WiningerDepartment of Rehabilitation Sciences, University of Hartford, West Hartford, CT 06117, USA. wininger@hartford.edu.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

With the collection of water-intake data, the National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey (NHANES) is becoming an increasingly popular resource for large-scale inquiry into human hydration. However, are we leveraging this resource properly? We sought to identify the opportunities and limitations inherent in hydration-related inquiry within a commonly studied database of hydration and nutrition. We also sought to critically review models published from this dataset. We reproduced two models published from the NHANES dataset, assessing the goodness of fit through conventional means (proportion of variance, R

Indexed as

DrinkingNutrition SurveysBody Mass IndexBody WaterDatabases, FactualHumansModels, TheoreticalNutritional StatusOrganism Hydration StatusOsmolar ConcentrationReproducibility of ResultsUrinebig datachronic diseasedatabasehydrationmodelingNHANESobesitywater intake

Identifiers

PMID31394869
PMCPMC6722508

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.