{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.02481389578163772, 'fraction_numerical': 0.009305210918114143, 'mean_word_length': 5.06390977443609, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
Comparative study between a medical device and reagent dipsticks in measuring pH.

OBJECTIVES
Urinary pH is a decisive factor in several pathologies, there by an informative marker employed in treatment decisions. Although extensively used, the urinary pH dipstick test may not be sufficiently accurate or precise for clinical decisions and more robust methodologies need to be considered. In this study, we compare pH measurements when using aportable medical device and different dipstick tests.


MATERIALS AND METHODS
Four pH dipstick brands and a Lit-Control® pH Meter were tested using commercial buffer solutions with seven distinct pH values representing the physiological range in urine (4.66; 5.0;5.5; 6.0; 7.0; 7.5; 8.0). A statistical analysis was performed to assess the correlation of measured versus real values, together with validity measures as resolution,precision and accuracy.


RESULTS
Validity measures stated the superiority of the portable pH meter, with a reduced dispersion of data and more exact values. Additionally, correlation analysis demonstrate that the pH values obtained with the pH meter were the closest to the buffers' real pH values.


CONCLUSION
The detailed comparative study presented here reveal the superiority of a portable pH meter to several of the most used dipstick brands in the clinic.Lit-Control® pH Meter represents a reliable alternative when a monitoring of urinary pH is needed, as may happen during the screening of diseases or treatment monitoringin the clinic, as well as during the self-monitoringby the patient under professional supervision at home.