MP50-18 RELATIVE VALIDITY OF A DIETARY SCREENING TOOL TO IDENTIFY RISK FACTORS FOR UROLITHIASIS

Abstract

You have accessJournal of UrologyStone Disease: Epidemiology & Evaluation II1 Apr 2018MP50-18 RELATIVE VALIDITY OF A DIETARY SCREENING TOOL TO IDENTIFY RISK FACTORS FOR UROLITHIASIS Kristina L. Penniston, Mariana M. Coughlin, Emma J. Leister, and R. Allan Jhagroo Kristina L. PennistonKristina L. Penniston More articles by this author , Mariana M. CoughlinMariana M. Coughlin More articles by this author , Emma J. LeisterEmma J. Leister More articles by this author , and R. Allan JhagrooR. Allan Jhagroo More articles by this author View All Author Informationhttps://doi.org/10.1016/j.juro.2018.02.1629AboutPDF ToolsAdd to favoritesDownload CitationsTrack CitationsPermissionsReprints ShareFacebookTwitterLinked InEmail INTRODUCTION AND OBJECTIVES The identification of specific dietary risk factors for urolithiasis enables tailored nutrition intervention that is capable of reducing stone risk. We developed a stone-specific food screener (SFS) and assessed its relative validity. METHODS The SFS, designed to ascertain patients′ habitual eating patterns, was developed via an iterative process involving identification of foods, nutrients, and other dietary factors that influence calcium (Ca) stones; pilot testing; modification; and statistical evaluation. Patients (n=26, 52±12 y; 57% female) and healthy volunteers (n=38, 33±14 y; 68% female) completed the SFS and, within 30 d, a 3-d weighed diet record (DR), a telephone-administered dietitian-assisted 24-h food recall (RC), or both. DRs and RCs were analyzed with nutrient analysis software. Results and agreement between measures were assessed. RESULTS The SFS compared favorably with DRs and RCs for fruit/vegetable intake (F/V, 5.3±2.4 vs. 5.7±3.0 and 5.2±2.8 servings/d, respectively; P>0.36), calcium (960±510 vs. 1,025±431 and 954±474 mg/d; P>0.08), and oxalate (239±96 vs. 221±172 and 274±230 mg/d; P>0.22). But for sodium (Na) and fluids, the SFS compared best with DRs (3,299±1,441 vs. 2,831±959 mg/d and 64±37 vs. 69±38 ozs/d; P>0.25); SFS vs. RCs for same comparisons differed significantly (P<0.02). While paired correlations were high for most SFS-to-DR comparisons (figure), it was low for Na (R2=0.01) due to highly divergent responses from some individuals. Within-person coefficients of variation (CV) for the above factors were lowest when the SFS was compared to DRs: 46% of individuals had CVs <20% for fluids, F/V, oxalate, Ca, and Na compared to only 29% when the SFS was compared to RCs. There was disagreement between DRs and RCs for fluids, oxalate, and Na (P<0.03 for all) due to inconsistent and variable intake of these dietary factors over multiple days. On average, the SFS took 6.5 minutes to complete. CONCLUSIONS The SFS compared well with 3-d weighed DRs for specific stone-related dietary factors (fluids, F/V, oxalate, Ca, and Na) and could be used in clinic to identify patients′ habitual dietary risk factors and to stratify those requiring more detailed nutritional evaluation, both of which could result in more appropriate individualized nutrition recommendations for stone prevention. © 2018FiguresReferencesRelatedDetails Volume 199Issue 4SApril 2018Page: e682-e683 Advertisement Copyright & Permissions© 2018MetricsAuthor Information Kristina L. Penniston More articles by this author Mariana M. Coughlin More articles by this author Emma J. Leister More articles by this author R. Allan Jhagroo More articles by this author Expand All Advertisement Advertisement PDF downloadLoading ...