Systematic review of studies comparing 24-hour and spot urine collections for estimating population salt intake
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To examine the usefulness of urine sodium (Na) excretion in spot or timed urine samples to estimate population dietary Na intake relative to the gold standard of 24-hour (h) urinary Na. METHODS: An electronic literature search was conducted of MEDLINE (from 1950) and EMBASE (from 1980) as well as the Cochrane Library using the terms "sodium," "salt," and "urine." Full publications of studies that examined 30 or more healthy human subjects with both urinary Na excretion in 24-h urine and one alternative method (spot, overnight, timed) were examined. RESULTS: The review included 1 380 130 participants in 20 studies. The main statistical method for comparing 24-h urine collections with alternative methods was the use of a correlation coefficient. Spot, timed, and overnight urine samples were subject to greater intra-individual and interindividual variability than 24-h urine collections. There was a wide range of correlation coefficients between 24-h urine Na and other methods. Some values were high, suggesting usefulness (up to r = 0.94), while some were low (down to r = 0.17), suggesting a lack of usefulness. The best alternative to collecting 24-h urine (overnight, timed, or spot) was not clear, nor was the biological basis for the variability between 24-h and alternative methods. CONCLUSIONS: There is great interest in replacing 24-h urine Na with easier methods to assess dietary Na. However, whether alternative methods are reliable remains uncertain. More research, including the use of an appropriate study design and statistical testing, is required to determine the usefulness of alternative methods.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.011 | 0.058 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.014 | 0.010 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.013 | 0.014 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 0.001 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".