Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 322

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 4 of the 4 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Assessing hydration status

Kavouras, Stavros A.·2002·Current Opinion in Clinical Nutrition and Metabolic Care

Abstract

PURPOSE: Understanding the importance of euhydration in humans in order to ensure good health in various situations, the purpose of this review is to examine the available techniques in assessing hydration status. RECENT FINDINGS: During the past 20 years, many indices have been developed to assess hydration levels accurately in humans. Changes in body weight, haematological and urine parameters, bioelectrical impedance, skinfold thickness, heart rate and blood pressure changes are among these indices. Plasma osmolality, urine osmolality and urine specific gravity are the most widely used markers of hydration. However, urine colour has also been used with reasonable accuracy when laboratory analysis is not available or when a quick estimate of hydration is necessary. Some data indicate that urine colour is as good indicator of hydration as plasma or urine osmolality or urine specific gravity. SUMMARY: Although there is no 'gold standard' for assessment of hydration status, it appears that changes in body weight, along with urine osmolality, specific gravity, conductivity and colour are among the most widely used indices. Furthermore, they provide reasonable results, especially when the analysis is based on the first morning urine sample.

Overview

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1097/00075197-200209000-00010

Cites

4 of 4 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Verification

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Citations

Cites

Cited by

See all 322

Metadata

Authors
Kavouras, S. A.
Venue
Current Opinion in Clinical Nutrition and Metabolic Care
Published
2002-09
Volume
5
Issue
5
Pages
519-524
ISSN
1363-1950 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2082314427
Cited by
322
References
4
FWCI
2.20
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review

Data sources

Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.

Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).

Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.