Skip Navigation

This Article
Right arrow Full Text Freely available
Right arrow FREE Full Text (PDF) Freely available
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Services
Right arrow Email this article to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Similar articles in ISI Web of Science
Right arrow Similar articles in PubMed
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Add to My Personal Archive
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrow Search for citing articles in:
ISI Web of Science (4)
Right arrowRequest Permissions
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by GARDE, A. H.
Right arrow Articles by KNUDSEN, L. E.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by GARDE, A. H.
Right arrow Articles by KNUDSEN, L. E.
Social Bookmarking
 Add to CiteULike   Add to Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us  
What's this?

Ann. occup. Hyg., Vol. 48, No. 2, pp. 171-179, 2004
© 2004 British Occupational Hygiene Society
Published by Oxford University Press

Comparison of Uncertainties Related to Standardization of Urine Samples with Volume and Creatinine Concentration

ANNE HELENE GARDE1,*, ÅSE MARIE HANSEN1, JESPER KRISTIANSEN1 and LISBETH EHLERT KNUDSEN2

1 National Institute of Occupational Health, Lersø Parkallé 105, DK-2100 Copenhagen; 2 Institute of Public Health, University of Copenhagen, c/o Depepartment of Pharmacology, Blegdamsvej 3, DK-2200 Copenhagen, Denmark

Received 20 May 2003; in final form 15 October 2003

When measuring biomarkers in urine, volume (and time) or concentration of creatinine are both accepted methods of standardization for diuresis. Both types of standardization contribute uncertainty to the final result. The aim of the present paper was to compare the uncertainty introduced when using the two types of standardization on 24 h samples from healthy individuals. Estimates of uncertainties were based on results from the literature supplemented with data from our own studies. Only the difference in uncertainty related to the two standardization methods was evaluated. It was found that the uncertainty associated with creatinine standardization (19–35%) was higher than the uncertainty related to volume standardization (up to 10%, when not correcting for deviations from 24 h) for 24 h urine samples. However, volume standardization introduced an average bias of 4% due to missed volumes in population studies. When studying a single 24 h sample from one individual, there was a 15–20% risk that the sample was incomplete. In this case a bias of ~25% was introduced when using volume standardization, whereas the uncertainty related to creatinine standardization was independent of the completeness of the sample. The uncertainty of creatinine standardization is increased when studying single voids rather than 24 h urine samples. This is partially counteracted by the increased statistical power due to the increased number of samples for each individual. Furthermore, there is a considerable increase in convenience for the participants, when collecting small volumes rather than complete 24 h samples.

Keywords: bias; standardization; uncertainty; urine


Add to CiteULike CiteULike   Add to Connotea Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us Del.icio.us    What's this?


This article has been cited by other articles:


Home page
Psychosom. Med.Home page
E. C. Bruce, Y. Guo, K. C. Lawson, A. K. Manatunga, S. F. Auyeung, W. M. McDonald, N. Rushing, A. R. Brown, N. Gilles, M. Emery, et al.
Platelet Thromboxane A2 Secretion in Patients With Major Depression Responsive to Electroconvulsive Therapy
Psychosom Med, April 1, 2008; 70(3): 319 - 327.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]


Home page
J. Nutr.Home page
T. Remer, T. Dimitriou, and C. Maser-Gluth
Renal Net Acid Excretion and Plasma Leptin Are Associated with Potentially Bioactive Free Glucocorticoids in Healthy Lean Women
J. Nutr., February 1, 2008; 138(2): 426S - 430S.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]



Disclaimer:
Please note that abstracts for content published before 1996 were created through digital scanning and may therefore not exactly replicate the text of the original print issues. All efforts have been made to ensure accuracy, but the Publisher will not be held responsible for any remaining inaccuracies. If you require any further clarification, please contact our Customer Services Department.