The DOI matches its Crossref record.
Spot Urine Concentrations Should Not Be Used for Hydration Assessment: A Methodology Review
Abstract
A common practice in sports science is to assess hydration status using the concentration of a single spot urine collection taken at any time of day for comparison against concentration (specific gravity, osmolality, color) thresholds established from first morning voids. There is strong evidence that this practice can be confounded by fluid intake, diet, and exercise, among other factors, leading to false positive/negative assessments. Thus, the purpose of this paper is to provide a simple explanation as to why this practice leads to erroneous conclusions and should be curtailed in favor of consensus hydration assessment recommendations.
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.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
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.
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?
In the citing paper
“Spot urine samples at other times of the day can be confounded by fluid intake, exercise, and food intake and may not be accurate indicators of hydration status.”
From National Athletic Trainers' Association Position Statement: Fluid Replacement for the Physically Active (2017) · cites this paper as [137]
In the citing paper
“When this is not feasible, ATs should know that urine analysis may confound the clinical decision-making process and that body mass assessment provides more reliable information. 137”
From National Athletic Trainers' Association Position Statement: Fluid Replacement for the Physically Active (2017) · cites this paper as [137]
In the citing paper
“An important consideration when assessing hydration is that urine volume and concentration are affected not only by fluid loss but also by activity, diet, and especially fluid intake. 137”
From National Athletic Trainers' Association Position Statement: Fluid Replacement for the Physically Active (2017) · cites this paper as [137]
In the citing paper
“As long as the first morning measurements of urine concentration are used to assess hydration, any one of them serves as an acceptable complement to body mass and thirst observations for assessing hydration. 137”
From National Athletic Trainers' Association Position Statement: Fluid Replacement for the Physically Active (2017) · cites this paper as [137]
In the citing paper
“The most stable value, which provides a valid and reliable indication of hydration status, is the first morning assessment.”
From National Athletic Trainers' Association Position Statement: Fluid Replacement for the Physically Active (2017) · cites this paper as [137]
3 more claims about this paper
Create a free account to see every claim other papers make about this one.
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
Cited by
McDermott, B. P., Anderson, S. A., Armstrong, L. E., Casa, D. J., Cheuvront, S. N., Cooper, L., Kenney, W. L., O'Connor, F. G., & Roberts, W. O. (2017) · Journal of Athletic Training · doi:10.4085/1062-6050-52.9.02 · Cited by 438
Self-citation
Metadata
- Authors
- Cheuvront, S. N., Kenefick, R. W., & Zambraski, E. J.
- Venue
- International Journal of Sport Nutrition and Exercise Metabolism
- Publisher
- Human Kinetics
- Published
- 2015-06
- Volume
- 25
- Issue
- 3
- Pages
- 293-297
- ISSN
- 1526-484X
- 1543-2742
- Cited by
- 66
- References
- 0
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
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Spot Urine Concentrations Should Not Be Used for Hydration Assessment: A Methodology Review. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1123/ijsnem.2014-0138
- The paper
- Cheuvront, S. N., Kenefick, R. W., & Zambraski, E. J. (2015). Spot Urine Concentrations Should Not Be Used for Hydration Assessment: A Methodology Review. International Journal of Sport Nutrition and Exercise Metabolism. https://doi.org/10.1123/ijsnem.2014-0138
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.
