Table 1.
Characteristics of Included Studies Examining the Accuracy of Test Methods to Assess Completeness of 24‐Hour Urine Collection in Relation to Para‐aminobenzoic Acid Recovery
| Study | Participants Enrolled, No.a | Age, y | Men, % | Country | Exclusions |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Fu18 | 681 | 37–66 | 49.8 | Canada | P, L, M, UT, T, F, DM, CKD, N |
| Subar et al24 | 484b | 40–69 | 53.9c | United States | DM, CKD, P, F |
| De Keyzer et al23 | 600 | 45–65 | 49.5 | Europe (Belgium, Czech Republic, France, Netherlands, Norway) | D, F, P, L, DM, CKD, M, A, N |
| Murakami et al20 | 654 | 18–22 | 0 | Japan | N, M |
| Bingham et al25 | 63 | 15d–82 | 38.1 | England | N, M, CKD |
| Leclercq, et al21 | 257 | 60–89e | NSf | Italy | N, UT, UL, M |
| Knuiman et al22 | 205g | 20–60 | NSh | Europe (Sweden, Finland, Denmark, Ireland, Netherlands, Germany, France, Portugal, Italy, Greece) | F, DCD |
| Williams and Bingham19 | 126 | 23–46i | 59.5 | England | DCD, L, N, M |
| Total | 3070 | 15–89 |
Abbreviations: A, allergy to para‐aminobenzoic acid; CKD, chronic kidney disease or renal disease; D, use of diuretics; DCD, drugs for chronic disease; DM, diabetes mellitus; F, prescribed diet; L, lactation; M, use of sulfonamide‐based antibiotics or acetaminophen‐containing medications (para‐aminobenzoic acid–containing medications), eg, paracetamol; N, nonadherence to para‐aminobenzoic acid including refusal to participate; NS, not specified; P, pregnancy; T, use of topical para‐aminobenzoic acid (eg, sunscreen or cosmetics containing para‐aminobenzoic acid); UL, reported urine loss during collection; UT, “disrespect of the timing of urine collection.” aThe number of participants in the study who collected at least one 24‐hour urine collection and were included in the study analysis. bMethods section of the study states that two participants dropped out of the study. The time at which the participants dropped out was not specifically stated. Data reported in the above table is on the 484 participants recruited for the study, since demographics for the two excluded individuals are unknown. cInformation on the proportion of male participants was available in Subar AF, Kipnis V, Troiano RP, et al. Using intake biomarkers to evaluate the extent of dietary misreporting in a large sample of adults: the OPEN study. Am J Epidemiol. 2003;158:1–13. dThe minimum age presented in the above table, assumes that the male renal patient aged 14 years was excluded from the study. Bingham originally presents the minimum age of 14 years in the results section before mentioning exclusions. This patient was not specifically mentioned in the exclusions and is further missing from results presented in Table 1 of the paper. eControl participants aged 19 to 39 years, were included in this study; however, data were not reported for this group for test methods assessing completeness. These control patients were further excluded from this Table. fNoninstitutionalized men and women were randomly selected after age and sex stratification of electoral roles (systematic sampling of three men and three women in each 5‐year stratum). Participant demographics and characteristics were not reported. gThe age range reported above was calculated using the total 1270 participants enrolled in this study. The number of participants reported above is a subset from six of the 11 European centers (taken from Table 5 from the original study) who had data reported on both complete and incomplete collections. hParticipants consisted of men and women from 11 European centers. It was recommended that 50 samples be collected from each sex. No women from Belgium and no men from Denmark participated. Total male participants consisted of 49% of the study population (623 of 1270). All data presented are of a subset of this population (sex not specified). iThe age range reported is of the total participants (taken from Table 1 from the original study). This range does not exclude participants missing 24‐hour urine collection.