Salt in the desert: A comparison of clinical versus serum‐calculated osmolality determination of dehydration

J. McCrow, M. Morton, C. Travers, Keren Harvey, E. Eeles
{"title":"Salt in the desert: A comparison of clinical versus serum‐calculated osmolality determination of dehydration","authors":"J. McCrow, M. Morton, C. Travers, Keren Harvey, E. Eeles","doi":"10.1097/01.HXR.0000511868.72087.78","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Background: Clinicians frequently use their own judgement to assess patient's hydration status although there is limited evidence for the diagnostic utility of any individual clinical symptom. Hence, the aim of this study was to compare the diagnostic accuracy of clinically assessed dehydration in older hospital patients (using multiple symptoms), versus dehydration measured using serum‐calculated osmolality (CO) as the reference standard. Method: Participants were 44 hospital patients aged ≥ 60 years. Dehydration was assessed clinically and pathologically (CO) within 24 hours of admission and at study exit. Indicators of diagnostic accuracy were calculated. Results: Clinicians identified 27% of patients as dehydrated at admission, and 19% at exit, compared to 19% and 16% using CO. Agreement between the measures was fair at admission and poor at exit. Clinical assessment showed poor sensitivity for predicting dehydration with reasonable specificity. Conclusions: Compared to the use of CO, clinical assessment of dehydration in older patients was poor. Given that failure to identify dehydration in this population may have serious consequences, we recommend that clinicians do not rely upon their own assessments without also using the reference standard.","PeriodicalId":90841,"journal":{"name":"Healthy aging research","volume":"5 1","pages":"1–5"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2016-04-20","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"1","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Healthy aging research","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1097/01.HXR.0000511868.72087.78","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 1

Abstract

Background: Clinicians frequently use their own judgement to assess patient's hydration status although there is limited evidence for the diagnostic utility of any individual clinical symptom. Hence, the aim of this study was to compare the diagnostic accuracy of clinically assessed dehydration in older hospital patients (using multiple symptoms), versus dehydration measured using serum‐calculated osmolality (CO) as the reference standard. Method: Participants were 44 hospital patients aged ≥ 60 years. Dehydration was assessed clinically and pathologically (CO) within 24 hours of admission and at study exit. Indicators of diagnostic accuracy were calculated. Results: Clinicians identified 27% of patients as dehydrated at admission, and 19% at exit, compared to 19% and 16% using CO. Agreement between the measures was fair at admission and poor at exit. Clinical assessment showed poor sensitivity for predicting dehydration with reasonable specificity. Conclusions: Compared to the use of CO, clinical assessment of dehydration in older patients was poor. Given that failure to identify dehydration in this population may have serious consequences, we recommend that clinicians do not rely upon their own assessments without also using the reference standard.
沙漠中的盐:临床与血清计算渗透压测定脱水的比较
背景:临床医生经常使用自己的判断来评估患者的水合状态,尽管任何个体临床症状的诊断效用的证据有限。因此,本研究的目的是比较老年住院患者临床评估的脱水(使用多种症状)与使用血清计算的渗透压(CO)作为参考标准测量的脱水的诊断准确性。方法:研究对象为44例年龄≥60岁的住院患者。在入院24小时内和研究结束时对脱水进行临床和病理评估(CO)。计算诊断准确性指标。结果:临床医生在入院时确定27%的患者脱水,在出院时确定19%,而使用CO的患者分别为19%和16%。入院时的措施是公平的,出院时的措施是不一致的。临床评估显示预测脱水的敏感性较差,但特异性合理。结论:与使用CO相比,老年患者脱水的临床评估较差。考虑到不能在这一人群中识别脱水可能会产生严重的后果,我们建议临床医生在没有使用参考标准的情况下不要依赖自己的评估。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信
小红书