Logo

Log In Sign Up |  An official publication of: American College of Emergency Physicians
Navigation
  • Home
  • Multimedia
    • Podcasts
    • Videos
  • Clinical
    • Airway Managment
    • Case Reports
    • Critical Care
    • Guidelines
    • Imaging & Ultrasound
    • Pain & Palliative Care
    • Pediatrics
    • Resuscitation
    • Trauma & Injury
  • Resource Centers
    • mTBI Resource Center
  • Career
    • Practice Management
      • Benchmarking
      • Reimbursement & Coding
      • Care Team
      • Legal
      • Operations
      • Quality & Safety
    • Awards
    • Certification
    • Compensation
    • Early Career
    • Education
    • Leadership
    • Profiles
    • Retirement
    • Work-Life Balance
  • Columns
    • ACEP4U
    • Airway
    • Benchmarking
    • Brief19
    • By the Numbers
    • Coding Wizard
    • EM Cases
    • End of the Rainbow
    • Equity Equation
    • FACEPs in the Crowd
    • Forensic Facts
    • From the College
    • Images in EM
    • Kids Korner
    • Medicolegal Mind
    • Opinion
      • Break Room
      • New Spin
      • Pro-Con
    • Pearls From EM Literature
    • Policy Rx
    • Practice Changers
    • Problem Solvers
    • Residency Spotlight
    • Resident Voice
    • Skeptics’ Guide to Emergency Medicine
    • Sound Advice
    • Special OPs
    • Toxicology Q&A
    • WorldTravelERs
  • Resources
    • ACEP.org
    • ACEP Knowledge Quiz
    • Issue Archives
    • CME Now
    • Annual Scientific Assembly
      • ACEP14
      • ACEP15
      • ACEP16
      • ACEP17
      • ACEP18
      • ACEP19
    • Annals of Emergency Medicine
    • JACEP Open
    • Emergency Medicine Foundation
  • About
    • Our Mission
    • Medical Editor in Chief
    • Editorial Advisory Board
    • Awards
    • Authors
    • Article Submission
    • Contact Us
    • Advertise
    • Subscribe
    • Privacy Policy
    • Copyright Information

Urine Tests Unreliable for Assessing Dehydration in Older Adults

By Marilynn Larkin (Reuters Health) | on June 29, 2016 | 0 Comment
Uncategorized
  • Tweet
  • Click to email a link to a friend (Opens in new window) Email
Print-Friendly Version

Urine tests should not be used to indicate hydration status in older people because their diagnostic accuracy “is too low to be useful,” researchers based in the UK and Ireland report.

You Might Also Like
  • Macrolide Antibiotics Not Tied to Higher Ventricular Arrhythmia Risk in Older Adults
  • Stroke Hospitalizations on the Rise in Younger U.S. Adults
  • More than One-Third of U.S. Adults Prescribed Opioids in 2015

“One in every five older adults in residential care, and two of every five older adults acutely admitted to hospital, are dehydrated because they drink too little,” Dr. Lee Hooper of Norwich Medical School, University of East Anglia, UK, told Reuters Health by email.

“Dehydration due to insufficient fluid intake is distinct from hypovolemia, which is due to excess fluid losses and associated with poor health outcomes such as disability and mortality in older people,” he explains.

“We can tell whether older adults are drinking enough, and remaining hydrated, by checking their blood (because) serum osmolality rises when we drink too little. But it is invasive and expensive to monitor serum osmolality regularly, so we use other methods (such as) urine specific gravity (USG), urine color, and urine osmolality to screen for dehydration,” he says.

To investigate the diagnostic accuracy of such measures, Dr. Hooper and colleagues analyzed data from individuals 65 and older taking part in the DRIE (Dehydration Recognition In our Elders; living in long-term care) or NU-AGE (Dietary Strategies for Healthy Ageing in Europe; living in the community) studies.

The team classified hydration status based on serum osmolality. Participants were categorized as normally hydrated (serum osmolality 275 to less than 295 mOsm/kg); having impending dehydration (295-300 mOsm/kg); or current dehydration (greater than 300 mOsm/kg). Seven participants with serum osmolality less than 275 mOsm/kg were included in the analysis as adequately hydrated, although they may have been over-hydrated.

A total of 162 DRIE participants provided a urine sample, as did 151 of NU-AGE participants. Urine measures included USG, color, cloudiness, volume, other dipstick tests such as glucose, ketones, blood, pH, protein, nitrite, leucocytes, and reasons for lack of a sample.

The researchers found that 19% of DRIE participants and 22% of NU-AGE participants were dehydrated, according to their May 25 online paper in the American Journal of Clinical Nutrition.

“Neither USG nor any other potential urinary tests were usefully diagnostic for water-loss dehydration,” they concluded.

According to Dr. Hooper, “When we used urinary tests, they identified many people as being dehydrated when this was not the case, and they suggested that many people were well hydrated when, in fact, they were dehydrated. Urine color was no better than chance at identifying whether an older person was dehydrated. USG was a tiny bit better than chance, but not nearly good enough to be useful.”

Pages: 1 2 | Single Page

Topics: ClinicalDehydrationDiagnosticElderlyHypovolemiaPatient CareResearchUrine ColorUrine Tests

Related

  • Patterns of Injury in Elder Abuse

    November 6, 2025 - 0 Comment
  • Let Core Values Help Guide Patient Care

    November 5, 2025 - 0 Comment
  • Non-Invasive Positive Pressure Ventilation in the Emergency Department

    October 1, 2025 - 0 Comment

Current Issue

ACEP Now: November 2025

Download PDF

Read More

No Responses to “Urine Tests Unreliable for Assessing Dehydration in Older Adults”

Leave a Reply Cancel Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *


*
*


Current Issue

ACEP Now: November 2025

Download PDF

Read More

Polls

Which topic would you like to see ACEP Now tackle?

View Results

Loading ... Loading ...
  • Polls Archive
Wiley
  • Home
  • About Us
  • Contact Us
  • Privacy
  • Terms of Use
  • Advertise
  • Cookie Preferences
Copyright © 2025 by John Wiley & Sons, Inc. All rights reserved, including rights for text and data mining and training of artificial technologies or similar technologies. ISSN 2333-2603