ArticleNetherlands heart journal : monthly journal of the Netherlands Society of Cardiology and the Netherlands Heart Foundation2026
Automated monitoring of urine output in hospitalized patients with indwelling urinary catheters: a clinical evaluation on the cardiology ward.
Article in Netherlands heart journal : monthly journal of the Netherlands Society of Cardiology and the Netherlands Heart Foundation, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Sensing in Urinary Catheter Systems: From Measurands and Signal Fidelity to Supportable Clinical Claims.Sensors (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Review
- Technology and evidence in daily cardiovascular practice.Netherlands heart journal : monthly journal of the Netherlands Society of Cardiology and the Netherlands Heart Foundation · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundUrine output (UO) is a key clinical parameter for assessing hemodynamic status, yet manual UO measurements are labour-intensive, and documentation is often incomplete and error-prone. The Gravity of Flow study evaluated an in-house developed urine production gauge (UPG), designed as a reusable-cost system compatible with standard urine bags for automatic, continuous UO measurement and Electronic Health Record (EHR) integration.
methodsThis single-centre observational study enrolled 25 cardiology patients (519 h) with indwelling urine catheters. To assess completeness and volume accuracy, UPG performance was compared against standard manual urine charting and a 24-hour container (gold standard).
resultsThe UPG achieved superior median completeness compared to manual charting (100% vs. 40%, p < 0.001). The device demonstrated high accuracy (median absolute percentage error 2.3%) and minimal bias (median -3 mL), meeting ±5% equivalence criteria (78.3% within bounds). In contrast, manual charting failed to meet equivalence. Performance of the UPG remained consistent across various UO flow rates.
conclusionBy providing superior, automated UO data (accuracy, completeness, reliability), the UPG has the potential to optimise fluid management, enable earlier intervention, and reduce nursing workload. Future research should validate these benefits across various clinical settings and over longer periods.
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.