Comparison of the interobserver variability of 2 different methods of dietary assessment in a geriatric ward: a pilot study.

BACKGROUND: Protein-energy malnutrition is highly prevalent in aged populations. Associated clinical, economic, and social burden is important. A valid screening method that would be robust and precise, but also easy, simple, and rapid to apply, is essential for adequate therapeutic management. OBJECTIVES: To compare the interobserver variability of 2 methods measuring food intake: semiquantitative visual estimations made by nurses versus calorie measurements performed by dieticians on the basis of standardized color digital photographs of servings before and after consumption. DESIGN: Observational monocentric pilot study. SETTING/PARTICIPANTS: A geriatric ward. The meals were randomly chosen from the meal tray. The choice was anonymous with respect to the patients who consumed them. MEASUREMENTS: The test method consisted of the estimation of calorie consumption by dieticians on the basis of standardized color digital photographs of servings before and after consumption. The reference method was based on direct visual estimations of the meals by nurses. Food intake was expressed in the form of a percentage of the serving consumed and calorie intake was then calculated by a dietician based on these percentages. The methods were applied with no previous training of the observers. Analysis of variance was performed to compare their interobserver variability. RESULTS: Of 15 meals consumed and initially examined, 6 were assessed with each method. Servings not consumed at all (0% consumption) or entirely consumed by the patient (100% consumption) were not included in the analysis so as to avoid systematic error. The digital photography method showed higher interobserver variability in calorie intake estimations. The difference between the compared methods was statistically significant (P < .03). CONCLUSIONS: Calorie intake measures for geriatric patients are more concordant when estimated in a semiquantitative way. Digital photography for food intake estimation without previous specific training of dieticians should not be considered as a reference method in geriatric settings, as it shows no advantages in terms of interobserver variability.

Motor Vehicle Crash Fatalities for Week Ending, August 28, 2009

Motor Vehicle Crash Fatalities

Motor Vehicle Crash Fatalities for Week Ending, September 4, 2009

Motor Vehicle Crash Fatalities

Motor Vehicle Crash Fatalities for Week Ending, September 18, 2009

Motor Vehicle Crash Fatalities

Motor Vehicle Crash Fatalities for Week Ending, September 18, 2009

Motor Vehicle Crash Fatalities

Motor Vehicle Crash Fatalities for Week Ending, September 25, 2009

Motor Vehicle Crash Fatalities

Motor Vehicle Crash Fatalities for Week Ending, October 16, 2009

Motor Vehicle Crash Fatalities

Motor Vehicle Crash Fatalities for Week Ending, October 16, 2009

Motor Vehicle Crash Fatalities

Variability in urinary oxalate measurements between six international laboratories.

BACKGROUND: Hyperoxaluria is a major risk factor for kidney stone formation. Although urinary oxalate measurement is part of all basic stone risk assessment, there is no standardized method for this measurement. METHODS: Urine samples from 24-h urine collection covering a broad range of oxalate concentrations were aliquoted and sent, in duplicates, to six blinded international laboratories for oxalate, sodium and creatinine measurement. In a second set of experiments, ten pairs of native urine and urine spiked with 10 mg/L of oxalate were sent for oxalate measurement. Three laboratories used a commercially available oxalate oxidase kit, two laboratories used a high-performance liquid chromatography (HPLC)-based method and one laboratory used both methods. RESULTS: Intra-laboratory reliability for oxalate measurement expressed as intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC) varied between 0.808 [95% confidence interval (CI): 0.427-0.948] and 0.998 (95% CI: 0.994-1.000), with lower values for HPLC-based methods. Acidification of urine samples prior to analysis led to significantly higher oxalate concentrations. ICC for inter-laboratory reliability varied between 0.745 (95% CI: 0.468-0.890) and 0.986 (95% CI: 0.967-0.995). Recovery of the 10 mg/L oxalate-spiked samples varied between 8.7 ± 2.3 and 10.7 ± 0.5 mg/L. Overall, HPLC-based methods showed more variability compared to the oxalate oxidase kit-based methods. CONCLUSIONS: Significant variability was noted in the quantification of urinary oxalate concentration by different laboratories, which may partially explain the differences of hyperoxaluria prevalence reported in the literature. Our data stress the need for a standardization of the method of oxalate measurement.