儿童化疗后尿比重和pH值评估的护理点检测方法与实验室分析的比较。

IF 1.9 3区 医学 Q2 NURSING Journal of Pediatric Oncology Nursing Pub Date : 2021-01-01 Epub Date: 2020-09-19 DOI:10.1177/1043454220958652
Karen Kalbfeld, Janet A Parkosewich, Wei Teng, Marjorie Funk
{"title":"儿童化疗后尿比重和pH值评估的护理点检测方法与实验室分析的比较。","authors":"Karen Kalbfeld,&nbsp;Janet A Parkosewich,&nbsp;Wei Teng,&nbsp;Marjorie Funk","doi":"10.1177/1043454220958652","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>To reduce the risk of renal toxicity, urine specific gravity (SG) and pH (potential of hydrogen) parameters should be met before nephrotoxic chemotherapeutic agents are administered. The purpose of this study was to compare laboratory urine SG and pH values with those obtained with urine point-of-care (POC) testing methods commonly used when caring for children receiving nephrotoxic chemotherapeutic agents.</p><p><strong>Method: </strong>A method-comparison design was used to compare the values of three POC methods for SG (dipstick, automated dipstick reader, refractometer) and three pH (dipstick, automated dipstick reader, litmus paper) methods with laboratory analysis of 86 urine samples from 43 children hospitalized on a pediatric hematology oncology unit in a large academic medical center. The Bland-Altman method was used to calculate bias and precision between POC and laboratory values.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Except for the SG refractometer, bias values from Bland-Altman graphs demonstrated poor agreement between POC and laboratory urine SG and pH results. The precision values between these methods indicated overestimation or underestimation of hydration or urine pH status. Compared with laboratory methods, 31% of POC visual reading of dipstick SG values were falsely low-putting the patient at risk of not receiving necessary hydration and subsequent nephrotoxicity.</p><p><strong>Discussion: </strong>In conclusion, most POC urine testing methods for SG and pH are not accurate compared with laboratory analysis. Because laboratory analyses can take longer than POC methods to obtain results, clinicians need to collaborate with laboratory medicine to ensure that an expedited process is in place in order to prevent chemotherapy administration delays.</p>","PeriodicalId":50093,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Pediatric Oncology Nursing","volume":"38 1","pages":"6-15"},"PeriodicalIF":1.9000,"publicationDate":"2021-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1177/1043454220958652","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Comparison of Point-of-Care Testing Methods and Laboratory Analysis for Assessing Urine Specific Gravity and pH of Children Undergoing Chemotherapy.\",\"authors\":\"Karen Kalbfeld,&nbsp;Janet A Parkosewich,&nbsp;Wei Teng,&nbsp;Marjorie Funk\",\"doi\":\"10.1177/1043454220958652\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Background: </strong>To reduce the risk of renal toxicity, urine specific gravity (SG) and pH (potential of hydrogen) parameters should be met before nephrotoxic chemotherapeutic agents are administered. The purpose of this study was to compare laboratory urine SG and pH values with those obtained with urine point-of-care (POC) testing methods commonly used when caring for children receiving nephrotoxic chemotherapeutic agents.</p><p><strong>Method: </strong>A method-comparison design was used to compare the values of three POC methods for SG (dipstick, automated dipstick reader, refractometer) and three pH (dipstick, automated dipstick reader, litmus paper) methods with laboratory analysis of 86 urine samples from 43 children hospitalized on a pediatric hematology oncology unit in a large academic medical center. The Bland-Altman method was used to calculate bias and precision between POC and laboratory values.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Except for the SG refractometer, bias values from Bland-Altman graphs demonstrated poor agreement between POC and laboratory urine SG and pH results. The precision values between these methods indicated overestimation or underestimation of hydration or urine pH status. Compared with laboratory methods, 31% of POC visual reading of dipstick SG values were falsely low-putting the patient at risk of not receiving necessary hydration and subsequent nephrotoxicity.</p><p><strong>Discussion: </strong>In conclusion, most POC urine testing methods for SG and pH are not accurate compared with laboratory analysis. Because laboratory analyses can take longer than POC methods to obtain results, clinicians need to collaborate with laboratory medicine to ensure that an expedited process is in place in order to prevent chemotherapy administration delays.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":50093,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Journal of Pediatric Oncology Nursing\",\"volume\":\"38 1\",\"pages\":\"6-15\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":1.9000,\"publicationDate\":\"2021-01-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1177/1043454220958652\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Journal of Pediatric Oncology Nursing\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1177/1043454220958652\",\"RegionNum\":3,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"2020/9/19 0:00:00\",\"PubModel\":\"Epub\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"NURSING\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Pediatric Oncology Nursing","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1177/1043454220958652","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2020/9/19 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"NURSING","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

背景:为了降低肾毒性的风险,在使用肾毒性化疗药物之前,应满足尿比重(SG)和pH(氢电位)参数。本研究的目的是比较实验室尿液SG和pH值与通常用于照顾接受肾毒性化疗药物的儿童的尿液护理点(POC)测试方法获得的结果。方法:采用方法比较设计,对某大型学术医疗中心儿童血液学肿瘤科43例住院患儿的86份尿液样本进行实验室分析,比较3种pH值测定方法(量尺、自动量尺读取器、折光计)和3种pH值测定方法(量尺、自动量尺读取器、石石试纸)的值。使用Bland-Altman方法计算POC与实验室值之间的偏差和精度。结果:除了SG折光仪外,Bland-Altman图的偏差值显示POC与实验室尿液SG和pH结果不一致。这些方法之间的精度值表明高估或低估水合作用或尿液pH值状态。与实验室方法相比,31%的POC视觉读数的量尺SG值是错误的低,使患者处于不接受必要的水化和随后的肾毒性的风险中。讨论:总之,与实验室分析相比,大多数POC尿液中SG和pH的检测方法并不准确。由于实验室分析可能比POC方法需要更长的时间才能获得结果,临床医生需要与实验室医学合作,以确保一个快速的过程到位,以防止化疗给药延误。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
Comparison of Point-of-Care Testing Methods and Laboratory Analysis for Assessing Urine Specific Gravity and pH of Children Undergoing Chemotherapy.

Background: To reduce the risk of renal toxicity, urine specific gravity (SG) and pH (potential of hydrogen) parameters should be met before nephrotoxic chemotherapeutic agents are administered. The purpose of this study was to compare laboratory urine SG and pH values with those obtained with urine point-of-care (POC) testing methods commonly used when caring for children receiving nephrotoxic chemotherapeutic agents.

Method: A method-comparison design was used to compare the values of three POC methods for SG (dipstick, automated dipstick reader, refractometer) and three pH (dipstick, automated dipstick reader, litmus paper) methods with laboratory analysis of 86 urine samples from 43 children hospitalized on a pediatric hematology oncology unit in a large academic medical center. The Bland-Altman method was used to calculate bias and precision between POC and laboratory values.

Results: Except for the SG refractometer, bias values from Bland-Altman graphs demonstrated poor agreement between POC and laboratory urine SG and pH results. The precision values between these methods indicated overestimation or underestimation of hydration or urine pH status. Compared with laboratory methods, 31% of POC visual reading of dipstick SG values were falsely low-putting the patient at risk of not receiving necessary hydration and subsequent nephrotoxicity.

Discussion: In conclusion, most POC urine testing methods for SG and pH are not accurate compared with laboratory analysis. Because laboratory analyses can take longer than POC methods to obtain results, clinicians need to collaborate with laboratory medicine to ensure that an expedited process is in place in order to prevent chemotherapy administration delays.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
3.10
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
审稿时长
>12 weeks
期刊介绍: SPECIAL PATIENTS NEED SPECIAL NURSES Caring for children with cancer is one of the most technically and emotionally difficult areas in nursing. Not only are you dealing with children and adolescents who hurt, you must reassure and educate families, balance a multitude of other health care professionals, and keep up with ever-changing nursing practice and care. To help special nurses stay aware of the newest effective nursing practices, innovative therapeutic approaches, significant information trends, and most practical research in hematology and pediatric oncology nursing, you need the Journal of Pediatric Oncology Nursing. The journal offers pediatric hematology, oncology, and immunology nurses in clinical practice and research, pediatric social workers, epidemiologists, clinical psychologists, child life specialists and nursing educators the latest peer-reviewed original research and definitive reviews on the whole spectrum of nursing care of childhood cancers, including leukemias, solid tumors and lymphomas, and hematologic disorders. JOPON covers the entire disease process--diagnosis, treatment, recovery, and survival, as well as end-of-life care. Six times a year, the Journal of Pediatric Oncology Nursing introduces new and useful nursing care practice and research from around the world that saves you time and effort. Just some of the spirited topics covered include: Cancer survivorship including later-life effects of childhood cancer, including fertility, cardiac insufficiency, and pulmonary fibrosis Combination therapies Hematologic and immunologic topics Holistic, family-centered supportive care Improvement of quality of life for children and adolescents with cancer Management of side effects from surgery, chemotherapy, and radiation Management of specific symptoms/diseases/co-infections Medication tolerance differences in children and adolescents Pain control Palliative and end of life care issues Pharmacologic agents for pediatrics/clinical trial results Psychological support for the patient, siblings, and families The dynamic articles cover a wide range of specific nursing concerns, including: Advanced practice issues Clinical issues Clinical proficiency Conducting qualitative and quantitative research Developing a core curriculum for pediatric hematology/oncology nursing Encouraging active patient participation Ethical issues Evaluating outcomes Professional development Stress management and handling your own emotions Other important features include Guest Editorials from experts in the discipline, Point/Counterpoint debates, Roadmaps (personal insights into the nursing experience), and Proceedings and Abstracts from the annual Association for Pediatric Hematology/Oncology Nurses (APHON) conference. Your special patients need special nurses--stay special by subscribing to the Journal of Pediatric Oncology Nursing today! This journal is a member of the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE).
期刊最新文献
Ultrasonic Deep Brain Neuromodulation in Acute Disorders of Consciousness: A Proof-of-Concept. Yoga in the Pediatric Oncology Population: A Review of the Literature. Pediatric Hematology/Oncology Nurse Spirituality, Stress, Coping, Spiritual Well-being, and Intent to Leave: A Mixed-method Study. Timing of Pegfilgrastim: Association with Febrile Neutropenia in a Pediatric Solid and CNS Tumor Population. Evidence-Based Recommendations for Nurse Monitoring and Management of Immunotherapy-Induced Cytokine Release Syndrome: A Systematic Review from the Children's Oncology Group.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1