Athletes’ Self-Assessment of Urine Color Using Two Color Charts to Determine Urine Concentration

Floris C. Wardenaar, Daniel Thompsett, Kaila A. Vento, Kathryn Pesek and Dean Bacalzo
Additional contact information
Floris C. Wardenaar: College of Health Solutions, Arizona State University, Phoenix, AZ 85004, USA
Daniel Thompsett: College of Health Solutions, Arizona State University, Phoenix, AZ 85004, USA
Kaila A. Vento: College of Health Solutions, Arizona State University, Phoenix, AZ 85004, USA
Kathryn Pesek: College of Health Solutions, Arizona State University, Phoenix, AZ 85004, USA
Dean Bacalzo: Herberger Institute for Design and the Arts, Arizona State University, Tempe, AZ 85281, USA

IJERPH, 2021, vol. 18, issue 8, 1-11

Abstract: 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, p < 0.001), with a moderate correlation between charts ( r = 0.76, 95% CI: 0.69–0.81). Bland-Altman analysis showed a weak reporting bias ( r = 0.15, p = 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.

Keywords: self-reporting; hydration status; osmolality; USG; accuracy; validation (search for similar items in EconPapers)
JEL-codes: I I1 I3 Q Q5 (search for similar items in EconPapers)
Date: 2021
References: View references in EconPapers View complete reference list from CitEc
Citations:

Downloads: (external link)
https://www.mdpi.com/1660-4601/18/8/4126/pdf (application/pdf)
https://www.mdpi.com/1660-4601/18/8/4126/ (text/html)

Related works:
This item may be available elsewhere in EconPapers: Search for items with the same title.

Export reference: BibTeX RIS (EndNote, ProCite, RefMan) HTML/Text

Persistent link: https://EconPapers.repec.org/RePEc:gam:jijerp:v:18:y:2021:i:8:p:4126-:d:535575

Access Statistics for this article

IJERPH is currently edited by Ms. Jenna Liu

More articles in IJERPH from MDPI
Bibliographic data for series maintained by MDPI Indexing Manager ().