4.1 Article

Estimate of dietary phosphorus intake using 24-h urine collection

Journal

JOURNAL OF CLINICAL BIOCHEMISTRY AND NUTRITION
Volume 55, Issue 1, Pages 62-66

Publisher

JOURNAL CLINICAL BIOCHEMISTRY & NUTRITION
DOI: 10.3164/jcbn.14-15

Keywords

serum phosphorus level; dietary phosphorus intake; 24-h urine collection

Funding

  1. Ministry of Education, Culture, Sports, Science and Technology in Japan

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Increases in serum phosphorus levels and dietary phosphorus intake induces vascular calcification, arterial sclerosis and cardiovascular diseases. Limiting phosphorus intake is advisable, however, no assessment methods are capable of estimating dietary phosphorus intake. We hypothesized that urinary phosphorus excretion can be translated into estimation of dietary phosphorus intake, and we evaluated whether a 24-h urine collection method could estimate dietary phosphorus intake. Thirty two healthy subjects were recruited for this study. Subjects collected urine samples over 24 h and weighed dietary records. We calculated dietary protein intake and phosphorus intake from dietary records and urine collection, and investigated associations between the two methods in estimating protein and phosphorus intake. Significant positive correlations were observed between dietary records and UC for protein and phosphorus intake. The average intakes determined from dietary records were significantly higher than from urine collection for both protein and phosphorus. There was a significant positive correlation between both the phosphorus and protein difference in dietary records and urine collection. The phosphorus-protein ratio in urine collection was significantly higher than in dietary records. Our data indicated that the 24-h urine collection method can estimate the amount of dietary phosphorus intake, and the results were superior to estimation by weighed dietary record.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.1
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available