Yıldız, TülinYazıcı, Cenk MuratTürker, PolatÖnler, EbruMalak, ArzuEren, Elif2022-05-112022-05-1120202459-14592459-1459https://doi.org/10.33808/clinexphealthsci.597753https://app.trdizin.gov.tr/makale/TkRjeU16WXhNUT09https://hdl.handle.net/20.500.11776/4464Objective: The aim of this study is to evaluate and compare the accuracy of urine output measurement performed by standard urine bags and urofix. Methods: This is a prospective study conducted at a 22-bed urology unit. Urine volume was measured either by a standard urine bag or urofix, verified by scaled container measurements in patients dressed with urinary catheter and expected to stay with it for 24 hours or more. In total, 1048 measurements were obtained for 131 patients. Results: The difference between median, maximum and minimum values of urine volumes from the scaled container and nurse’s forecast was evaluated for each of 4 measurements. When the urine volume was measured with the standard urine bag, the average volume was 550 cc in the first measurement while it was 300 cc with urofix. Mean values for the second, third and fourth measurements with standard urine bag and urofix were as follows respectively; 590 cc and 335 cc, 500 cc and 300 cc, 600 cc and 300 cc. The difference was statistically significant in all measurements (p<0.001). Conclusion: In this study, urofix was the most reliable method for measuring urine output and fluid management. Furthermore, if the patient has a standard urine bag, it is recommended to confirm the urine output with a scaled container.en10.33808/clinexphealthsci.597753info:eu-repo/semantics/openAccessArticle104423427N/AWOS:000604683100015TkRjeU16WXhNUT09