Diagnosing dehydration? Blend evidence with clinical observations
Research output: Contribution to journal › Review article › peer-review
Standard Standard
In: Current opinion in clinical nutrition and metabolic care, Vol. 19, No. 6, 11.2016, p. 434-438.
Research output: Contribution to journal › Review article › peer-review
HarvardHarvard
APA
CBE
MLA
VancouverVancouver
Author
RIS
TY - JOUR
T1 - Diagnosing dehydration?
T2 - Blend evidence with clinical observations
AU - Armstrong, Lawrence E
AU - Kavouras, Stavros A
AU - Walsh, Neil P
AU - Roberts, William O.
PY - 2016/11
Y1 - 2016/11
N2 - PURPOSE OF REVIEW: The purpose of the review is to provide recommendations to improve clinical decision-making based on the strengths and weaknesses of commonly used hydration biomarkers and clinical assessment methods.RECENT FINDINGS: There is widespread consensus regarding treatment, but not the diagnosis of dehydration. Even though it is generally accepted that a proper clinical diagnosis of dehydration can only be made biochemically rather than relying upon clinical signs and symptoms, no gold standard biochemical hydration index exists. Other than clinical biomarkers in blood (i.e., osmolality and blood urea nitrogen/creatinine) and in urine (i.e., osmolality and specific gravity), blood pressure assessment and clinical symptoms in the eye (i.e., tear production and palpitating pressure) and the mouth (i.e., thirst and mucous wetness) can provide important information for diagnosing dehydration.SUMMARY: We conclude that clinical observations based on a combination of history, physical examination, laboratory values, and clinician experience remain the best approach to the diagnosis of dehydration.
AB - PURPOSE OF REVIEW: The purpose of the review is to provide recommendations to improve clinical decision-making based on the strengths and weaknesses of commonly used hydration biomarkers and clinical assessment methods.RECENT FINDINGS: There is widespread consensus regarding treatment, but not the diagnosis of dehydration. Even though it is generally accepted that a proper clinical diagnosis of dehydration can only be made biochemically rather than relying upon clinical signs and symptoms, no gold standard biochemical hydration index exists. Other than clinical biomarkers in blood (i.e., osmolality and blood urea nitrogen/creatinine) and in urine (i.e., osmolality and specific gravity), blood pressure assessment and clinical symptoms in the eye (i.e., tear production and palpitating pressure) and the mouth (i.e., thirst and mucous wetness) can provide important information for diagnosing dehydration.SUMMARY: We conclude that clinical observations based on a combination of history, physical examination, laboratory values, and clinician experience remain the best approach to the diagnosis of dehydration.
KW - Algorithms
KW - Biomarkers
KW - Blood Pressure
KW - Blood Urea Nitrogen
KW - Clinical Decision-Making
KW - Creatinine
KW - Dehydration
KW - Humans
KW - Mucous Membrane
KW - Osmolar Concentration
KW - Specific Gravity
KW - Urine
KW - Journal Article
KW - Review
U2 - 10.1097/MCO.0000000000000320
DO - 10.1097/MCO.0000000000000320
M3 - Review article
C2 - 27583707
VL - 19
SP - 434
EP - 438
JO - Current opinion in clinical nutrition and metabolic care
JF - Current opinion in clinical nutrition and metabolic care
SN - 1363-1950
IS - 6
ER -