ArticleAmerican journal of clinical and experimental urology2022
Fasting and 24-h urine pH in patients with urolithiasis using potassium citrate.
Article in American journal of clinical and experimental urology, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed, 3 citations in OpenAlex.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
10 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeTo evaluate the correlation between the pH readings in 24-h urine and the random fasting specimen in patients with urolithiasis using 2 methods.
methodsA total of 114 patients with urinary lithiasis using potassium citrate were prospectively analyzed. All patients collected 24-h urine and an additional sample, after nocturnal fasting, collected on the day they brought the 24-h sample at the lab. Two different methods (test strip and digital meter) were used to determine pH values.
resultsThe pH analysis using strips in the 24-h urine presented a mean value similar to the one obtained in the fasting sample (6.07 ± 0.74 vs. 6.02 ± 0.82, respectively; P > 0.05). The same behavior was seen considering the readings with a digital pH meter (5.8 ± 0.78 vs. 5.75 ± 0.83; P > 0.05). However, readings conducted in the same specimen with pH meter and test strip were dissonant (P < 0.05), suggesting that the colorimetric method is not reliable in the assessment of urinary pH in this population.
conclusionpH assessment in a random urinary specimen proved as efficient as the 24-h urine standard method to monitor patients with kidney stones in the use of potassium citrate. Classical test strip analysis is not sensitive enough to evaluate the urine pH in this population and digital pH meter reading is preferred.
Indexed as
Identifiers
35874289PMC9301065W4288064409What 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.