ArticleScientific reports2022
Monitoring fluid intake by commercially available smart water bottles.
Article in Scientific reports, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 10 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
10 citing papers in PubMed.
- Small Data Approaches to Link Faster Time Scale Engagement Dynamics with Slower Time Scale Outcomes in Biobehavioral Interventions.Chinese political science review · 2025Article
- Digital applications for diet monitoring, planning, and precision nutrition for citizens and professionals: a state of the art.Nutrition reviews · 2025Review
- Every sip counts: Understanding hydration behaviors and user-acceptability of digital tools to promote adequate intake during early and late pregnancy.PLOS digital health · 2024Article
- Promoting fluid intake to increase urine volume for kidney stone prevention: Protocol for a randomized controlled efficacy trial of the sipContemporary clinical trials · 2024Article
- An Analysis of Fluid Intake Assessment Approaches for Fluid Intake Monitoring System.Biosensors · 2023Article
- Hydration for Adult Patients with Nephrolithiasis: Specificities and Current Recommendations.Nutrients · 2023Review
- Accuracy of a smart bottle in measuring fluid intake by American football players during pre-season training.Scientific reports · 2023Article
- Fluid intake recommendations in urolithiasis and general advice to patients without metabolic risk factors.World journal of urology · 2023Article
- How to Monitor Hydration Status and Urine Dilution in Patients with Nephrolithiasis.Nutrients · 2023Review
- The prevalence of chronic dehydration and associated with cardiometabolic risks among agriculture and aquaculture workers.Frontiers in public health · 2023Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Fluid intake is important to prevent dehydration and reduce recurrent kidney stones. There has been a trend in recent years to develop tools to monitor fluid intake using "smart" products such as smart bottles. Several commercial smart bottles are available, mainly targeting health-conscious adults. To the best of our knowledge, these bottles have not been validated in the literature. This study compares four commercially available smart bottles in terms of both performance and functionality. These bottles are the H2OPal, HidrateSpark Steel, HidrateSpark 3, and Thermos Smart Lid. One hundred intake events for each bottle were recorded and analyzed versus ground truth obtained from a high-resolution weight scale. The H2OPal had the lowest Mean Percent Error (MPE) and was able to balance out errors throughout multiple sips. The HidrateSpark 3 provided the most consistent and reliable results, with the lowest per sip error. The MPE values for HidrateSpark bottles were further improved using linear regression, as they had more consistent individual error values. The Thermos Smart Lid provides the lowest accuracy, as the sensors do not extend through the entire bottle, leading to many missed recordings.
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.