Accuracy of daily fluid intake measurements using a “smart” water bottle

  • Michael S. Borofsky
  • Casey A. Dauw
  • Nadya York
  • Colin Terry
  • James E. Lingeman
Original Paper

Abstract

High fluid intake is an effective preventative strategy against recurrent kidney stones but is known to be challenging to achieve. Recently, a smart water bottle (Hidrate Spark™, Minneapolis, MN) was developed as a non-invasive fluid intake monitoring system. This device could help patients who form stones from low urine volume achieve sustainable improvements in hydration, but has yet to be validated in a clinical setting. Hidrate Spark™ uses capacitive touch sensing via an internal sensor. It calculates volume measurements by detecting changes in water level and sends data wirelessly to users’ smartphones through an application. A pilot study was conducted to assess accuracy of measured fluid intake over 24 h periods when used in a real life setting. Subjects were provided smart bottles and given short tutorials on their use. Accuracy was determined by comparing 24-h fluid intake measurements calculated through the smart bottle via sensor to standard volume measurements calculated by the patient from hand over the same 24 h period. Eight subjects performed sixty-two 24-h measurements (range 4–14). Mean hand measurement was 57.2 oz/1692 mL (21–96 oz/621–2839 mL). Corresponding mean smart bottle measurement underestimated true fluid intake by 0.5 ozs. (95% CI −1.9, 0.9). Percent difference between hand and smart bottle measurements was 0.0% (95% CI − 3%, 3%). Intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC), calculated to assess consistency between hand measures and bottle measures, was 0.97 (0.95, 0.98) indicating an extremely high consistency between measures. 24-h fluid intake measurements from a novel fluid monitoring system (Hidrate Spark™) are accurate to within 3%. Such technology may be useful as a behavioral aide and/or research tool particularly among recurrent stone formers with low urinary volume.

Keywords

Metabolic stone Urolithiasis Mobile health Technology Smartphone Fluid Water Nephrolithiasis 

Notes

Compliance with ethical standards

Conflict of interest

No authors of this study have any conflicts or competing interests in relation to this study.

References

  1. 1.
    Scales CD Jr, Smith AC, Hanley JM, Saigal CS, Urologic Diseases in America Project (2012) Prevalence of kidney stones in the United States. Eur Urol 62(1):160–165CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Kirkali Z, Rasooly R, Star RA, Rodgers GP (2015) Urinary stone disease: progress, status, and needs. Urology 86(4):651–653CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Borghi L, Meschi T, Amato F, Briganti A, Novarini A, Giannini A (1996) Urinary volume, water and recurrences in idiopathic calcium nephrolithiasis: a 5-year randomized prospective study. J Urol 155(3):839–843CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Qaseem A, Dallas P, Forciea MA, Starkey M, Denberg TD (2014) Dietary and pharmacologic management to prevent recurrent nephrolithiasis in adults: a clinical practice guideline from the American College of Physicians. Ann Intern Med 161(9):659–667CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Dauw CA, Yi Y, Bierlein MJ et al (2016) Factors associated with preventive pharmacological therapy adherence among patients with kidney stones. Urology 93:45–49CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Bassi N, Karagodin I, Wang S et al (2014) Lifestyle modification for metabolic syndrome: a systematic review. Am J Med 127(12):1242-e1CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Lotan Y, Buendia Jimenez I, Lenoir-Wijnkoop I et al (2013) Increased water intake as a prevention strategy for recurrent urolithiasis: major impact of compliance on cost-effectiveness. J Urol 189(3):935–939CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Scales CD Jr, Tasian GE, Schwaderer AL, Goldfarb DS, Star RA, Kirkali Z (2016) Urinary stone disease: advancing knowledge, patient care, and population health. Clin J Am Soc Nephrol 11(7):1305–1312CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Free C, Phillips G, Watson L et al (2013) The effectiveness of mobile-health technologies to improve health care service delivery processes: a systematic review and meta-analysis. PLoS Med 10(1):e1001363CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Hou C, Carter B, Hewitt J, Francisa T, Mayor S (2016) Do mobile phone applications improve glycemic control (HbA1c) in the self-management of diabetes? A systematic review, meta-analysis, and GRADE of 14 randomized trials. Diabetes Care 39(11):2089–2095CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Stevens DJ, McKenzie K, Cui HW, Noble JG, Turney BW (2015) Smartphone apps for urolithiasis. Urolithiasis 43(1):13–19CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Smith LP, Hua J, Seto E et al (2014) Development and validity of a 3-day smartphone assisted 24-hour recall to assess beverage consumption in a Chinese population: a randomized cross-over study. Asia Pac J Clin Nutr 23(4):678–690PubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Conroy DE, Dubansky A, Remillard J et al (2017) Using behavior change techniques to guide selections of mobile applications to promote fluid consumption. Urology 99:33–37CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag GmbH Germany 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  • Michael S. Borofsky
    • 1
  • Casey A. Dauw
    • 2
  • Nadya York
    • 3
  • Colin Terry
    • 4
  • James E. Lingeman
    • 3
  1. 1.Department of UrologyUniversity of MinnesotaMinneapolisUSA
  2. 2.Department of UrologyUniversity of MichiganAnn ArborUSA
  3. 3.Department of UrologyIndiana University School of MedicineIndianapolisUSA
  4. 4.Methodist Research InstituteIndianapolisUSA

Personalised recommendations