Wardenaar Floris C, Thompsett Daniel, Vento Kaila A, Pesek Kathryn, Bacalzo Dean
College of Health Solutions, Arizona State University, Phoenix, AZ 85004, USA.
Herberger Institute for Design and the Arts, Arizona State University, Tempe, AZ 85281, USA.
Int J Environ Res Public Health. 2021 Apr 13;18(8):4126. doi: 10.3390/ijerph18084126.
Our objective was to determine self-reported accuracy of an athletic population using two different urine color (Uc) charts (8-color vs. 7-color Uc chart). After approval by the Institutional Review Board, members of an athletic population (n = 189, 20 (19-22) year old student- or tactical athletes and coaches, with n = 99 males and n = 90 females) scored their Uc using two charts. To determine the diagnostic value of Uc, results were compared with urine concentration (osmolality and urine specific gravity, USG). Uc was scored slightly darker with the 8-color vs. 7-color Uc chart (2.2 ± 1.2 vs. 2.0 ± 1.2, respectively, < 0.001), with a moderate correlation between charts ( = 0.76, 95% CI: 0.69-0.81). Bland-Altman analysis showed a weak reporting bias ( = 0.15, = 0.04). The area under the curve for correct urine sample classification ranged between 0.74 and 0.86. Higher accuracy for both methods was found when Uc scores were compared to USG over osmolality, indicated by 4.8-14.8% range in difference between methods. The optimal Uc cut-off value to assess a low vs. a high urine concentration for both Uc charts varied in this study between 1 and ≤2 while accuracy for charts was similar up to 77% when compared to USG.
我们的目标是使用两种不同的尿液颜色（Uc）图表（8色与7色Uc图表）来确定运动员群体自我报告的准确性。经机构审查委员会批准后，运动员群体成员（n = 189，年龄在20（19 - 22）岁的学生或战术运动员及教练，其中男性n = 99，女性n = 90）使用两种图表对他们的Uc进行评分。为了确定Uc的诊断价值，将结果与尿液浓度（渗透压和尿比重，USG）进行比较。与7色Uc图表相比，8色Uc图表的Uc评分略深（分别为2.2±1.2和2.0±1.2，<0.001），图表之间具有中等相关性（= 0.76，95%CI：0.69 - 0.81）。Bland - Altman分析显示报告偏差较弱（= 0.15，= 0.04）。正确尿液样本分类的曲线下面积在0.74至0.86之间。当将Uc评分与USG而非渗透压进行比较时，两种方法都具有更高的准确性，两种方法之间的差异范围为4.8 - 14.8%。在本研究中，两种Uc图表评估低尿液浓度与高尿液浓度的最佳Uc截断值在1至≤2之间变化，与USG相比，图表的准确性相似，最高可达77%。
