Archives of disease in childhood · 2001
Double blind, randomised controlled clinical trial of hypo-osmolar oral rehydration salt solution in dehydrating acute diarrhoea in severely malnourished (marasmic) children.
Клиническое исследованиеСравнительное исследованиеСтатьяРандомизированное исследованиеНазвание и аннотация: Перевод пока не подготовлен
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Dutta P, Mitra U, Manna B, Niyogi S K, Roy K, Mondal C, Bhattacharya S K
Аннотация
AIMS: To compare the clinical efficacy of hypo-osmolar oral rehydration salt (ORS) solution (224 mmol/l) and standard ORS solution (311 mmol/l) in severely malnourished (marasmic) children having less than 60% Harvard standard weight for age with dehydrating acute watery diarrhoea.
METHODS: In a double blind, randomised, controlled trial, 64 children aged 6-48 months were randomly assigned standard (n = 32) or hypo-osmolar ORS (n = 32).
RESULTS: Stool output (52.3 v 96.6 g/kg/day), duration of diarrhoea (41.5 v 66.4 hours), intake of ORS (111.5 v 168.9 ml/kg/day), and fluid intake (214.6 v 278.3 ml/kg/day) were significantly less in the hypo-osmolar group than in the standard ORS group. Percentage of weight gain on recovery in the hypo-osmolar group was also significantly less (4.3 v 5.4% of admission weight) than in the standard ORS group. A total of 29 (91%) children in the standard ORS group and 32 (100%) children in the hypo-osmolar group recovered within five days of initiation of therapy. Mean serum sodium and potassium concentrations on recovery were within the normal range in both groups.
CONCLUSION: Our findings suggest that hypo-osmolar ORS has beneficial effects on the clinical course of dehydrating acute watery diarrhoea in severely malnourished (marasmic) children. Furthermore, children did not become hyponatraemic after receiving hypo-osmolar ORS.
METHODS: In a double blind, randomised, controlled trial, 64 children aged 6-48 months were randomly assigned standard (n = 32) or hypo-osmolar ORS (n = 32).
RESULTS: Stool output (52.3 v 96.6 g/kg/day), duration of diarrhoea (41.5 v 66.4 hours), intake of ORS (111.5 v 168.9 ml/kg/day), and fluid intake (214.6 v 278.3 ml/kg/day) were significantly less in the hypo-osmolar group than in the standard ORS group. Percentage of weight gain on recovery in the hypo-osmolar group was also significantly less (4.3 v 5.4% of admission weight) than in the standard ORS group. A total of 29 (91%) children in the standard ORS group and 32 (100%) children in the hypo-osmolar group recovered within five days of initiation of therapy. Mean serum sodium and potassium concentrations on recovery were within the normal range in both groups.
CONCLUSION: Our findings suggest that hypo-osmolar ORS has beneficial effects on the clinical course of dehydrating acute watery diarrhoea in severely malnourished (marasmic) children. Furthermore, children did not become hyponatraemic after receiving hypo-osmolar ORS.