Diagnosing dehydration blend evidence with clinical observations

Lawrence E. Armstrong, Stavros A. Kavouras, Neil P. Walsh, William O. Roberts

Research output: Contribution to journalReview article

21 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

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.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Pages (from-to)434-438
Number of pages5
JournalCurrent Opinion in Clinical Nutrition and Metabolic Care
Volume19
Issue number6
DOIs
StatePublished - Nov 1 2016
Externally publishedYes

Fingerprint

Dehydration
Osmolar Concentration
Biomarkers
Thirst
Specific Gravity
Symptom Assessment
Blood Urea Nitrogen
Tears
Signs and Symptoms
Physical Examination
Mouth
Creatinine
Consensus
History
Urine
Blood Pressure
Pressure

Keywords

  • Body water
  • Fluid balance
  • Hydration assessment
  • Hydration status
  • Hypovolemia

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Medicine (miscellaneous)
  • Nutrition and Dietetics

Cite this

Diagnosing dehydration blend evidence with clinical observations. / Armstrong, Lawrence E.; Kavouras, Stavros A.; Walsh, Neil P.; Roberts, William O.

In: Current Opinion in Clinical Nutrition and Metabolic Care, Vol. 19, No. 6, 01.11.2016, p. 434-438.

Research output: Contribution to journalReview article

Armstrong, Lawrence E. ; Kavouras, Stavros A. ; Walsh, Neil P. ; Roberts, William O. / Diagnosing dehydration blend evidence with clinical observations. In: Current Opinion in Clinical Nutrition and Metabolic Care. 2016 ; Vol. 19, No. 6. pp. 434-438.
@article{13fb9fe597344a17872691a679e60057,
title = "Diagnosing dehydration blend evidence with clinical observations",
abstract = "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.",
keywords = "Body water, Fluid balance, Hydration assessment, Hydration status, Hypovolemia",
author = "Armstrong, {Lawrence E.} and Kavouras, {Stavros A.} and Walsh, {Neil P.} and Roberts, {William O.}",
year = "2016",
month = "11",
day = "1",
doi = "10.1097/MCO.0000000000000320",
language = "English (US)",
volume = "19",
pages = "434--438",
journal = "Current Opinion in Clinical Nutrition and Metabolic Care",
issn = "1363-1950",
publisher = "Lippincott Williams and Wilkins",
number = "6",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Diagnosing dehydration blend evidence with clinical observations

AU - Armstrong, Lawrence E.

AU - Kavouras, Stavros A.

AU - Walsh, Neil P.

AU - Roberts, William O.

PY - 2016/11/1

Y1 - 2016/11/1

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 - Body water

KW - Fluid balance

KW - Hydration assessment

KW - Hydration status

KW - Hypovolemia

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=84984677994&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=84984677994&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1097/MCO.0000000000000320

DO - 10.1097/MCO.0000000000000320

M3 - Review article

C2 - 27583707

AN - SCOPUS:84984677994

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 -