Find in Library

Objective To compare the accuracy of measuring urine output in hours manually and with a urine output dynamic monitor. Methods A total of 68 burned patients admitted to Institute of Burns of the First Affiliated Hospital from September 2017 to July 2018 were prospective recruited in this study. All these patients were required for hourly monitoring of urine output under doctor's orders. According to the time of admission, they were randomly assigned into manual monitoring group (control group, n=34) and device monitoring group (trial group, n=34). Their data of hourly urine output were collected for 8 h, and those from the control group were conducted by a nurse visually reading the scale on the disposable urine bag and then re-measuring the volume with a measuring cylinder. The volume of the trial group were dynamically recorded by the monitor, and also re-measured by a measuring cylinder. The hourly urine volume at each time point was compared between the 2 groups, and also with the standard volume measured by the cylinder. The obtained data were processed with Kolmogorov-Smirnov test, Mann-Whitney U test, linear regression analysis and Chi-square test. Results The median of measurement deviation was 15.00 mL and the measurement deviation rate was 17.75% in the control group, which was significantly higher than those of the trial group (2.00 mL and 1.71%, P < 0.001). The trial group had a better resolvable coefficient (R2=0.999), and its slope of the regression equation (0.988) was closer to 1, when compared with the control group (R2=0.860, 0.890). The percentage within the acceptable error range was significantly higher in the trial group than the control group (93.75% vs 14.00%, P < 0.001). Among the 272 time points of monitoring, punctual measuring was only 34 times (12.50%) in the control group, and the maximal time error was 20 (median 10). But for the trial group, the punctual measuring was obtained at every time point. Chi-square test showed that statistical difference was found in the punctuality ratio of measurement time between the 2 groups (P < 0.001). Conclusion The urine output dynamic monitor has much higher accuracy than manual monitoring, and it has better clinical applicability and is worthy of promotion in clinical practice.