nad a22 4500 551468114 20181215081819.0 cr unu---uuuuu 181215e201807 xx s 000 0 eng 10.5167/uzh-159401 doi 10.1089/end.2018.0202 doi (ZORA)oai:www.zora.uzh.ch:159401 610 ddc 29699425 pmid Evaluation of a Portable Urinary pH Meter and Reagent Strips [Elektronische Daten] [Vincent De Coninck, Etienne Xavier Keller, María Rodríguez-Monsalve, Steeve Doizi, Marie Audouin, Jean-Philippe Haymann, Olivier Traxer] closedAccess eu-repo OBJECTIVE To evaluate a portable electronic pH meter and to put its accuracy in perspective with reagent strips read by a layperson, a healthcare professional, and an electronic reading device. MATERIALS AND METHODS Based on a preanalysis on 20 patients, a sample size of 77 urine aliquots from healthy volunteers was necessary to obtain sufficient study power. Measurements of urinary pH were obtained by use of reagent strips, a portable pH meter and a laboratory pH meter (gold standard). Reagents strips were read by a professional experienced in interpreting strips, a layperson, and an electronic strip reader. The mean matched pair difference between measurement methods was analyzed by the paired t-test. The degree of correlation and agreement were evaluated by the Pearson's correlation coefficient and Bland-Altman plots, respectively. RESULTS The mean matched pair difference between the gold standard and all other pH measurement methods was the smallest with the portable electronic pH meter (bias 0.01, 95% confidence interval [CI] -0.07 to 0.08; p = 0.89), followed by strips read by a professional (bias -0.09, 95% CI -0.21 to 0.02; p = 0.10), layperson (bias -0.17, 95% CI -0.31 to -0.04; p = 0.015), and electronic strip reader (bias -0.29, 95% CI -0.41 to -0.16; p < 0.001). The portable electronic pH meter achieved the highest Pearson's correlation coefficient and narrowest 95% limits of agreement, followed by strip interpretation by a professional, electronic strip reader, and layperson. To quantify the ability of pH measurement methods to correctly classify values within a predefined urinary pH target range, we performed classification tests for several stones. The portable electronic pH meter outperformed all other measurement methods for negative predictive values. CONCLUSIONS Findings of this study support that the portable electronic pH meter is a reliable pH measuring device. It appears to be more accurate compared to reagent strips readings. Urological Clinic zora De Coninck Vincent joint author Keller Etienne Xavier joint author Rodríguez-Monsalve María joint author Doizi Steeve joint author Audouin Marie joint author Haymann Jean-Philippe joint author Traxer Olivier joint author Journal of Endourology 32(7):647-652 https://www.zora.uzh.ch/id/eprint/159401/1/end.2018.0202.pdf text/html WWW-Backlink auf das Repository 1 Journal Article PeerReviewed zora ZORA 856 40 https://www.zora.uzh.ch/id/eprint/159401/1/end.2018.0202.pdf text/html WWW-Backlink auf das Repository ZORA 700 1- De Coninck Vincent joint author ZORA 700 1- Keller Etienne Xavier joint author ZORA 700 1- Rodríguez-Monsalve María joint author ZORA 700 1- Doizi Steeve joint author ZORA 700 1- Audouin Marie joint author ZORA 700 1- Haymann Jean-Philippe joint author ZORA 700 1- Traxer Olivier joint author ZORA 773 0- Journal of Endourology 32(7):647-652 BK010053 XK010053 XK010000 ZORA ZORA ZORA Journal Article closedAccess