Stephen B Freedman1, Ben Vandermeer2, Andrea Milne2, Lisa Hartling2. 1. Sections of Pediatric Emergency Medicine and Gastroenterology, Alberta Children's Hospital, Alberta Children's Hospital Research Institute, University of Calgary, Calgary, Alberta, Canada. 2. Alberta Research Centre for Health Evidence, Department of Pediatrics, University of Alberta, Edmonton, Alberta, Canada.
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To determine the most accurate, noninvasive method of assessing dehydration. STUDY DESIGN: The following data sources were searched: electronic databases, gray literature, scientific meetings, reference lists, and authors of unpublished studies. Eligible studies were comparative outpatient evaluations that used an accepted reference standard and were conducted in developed countries in children aged <18 years with gastroenteritis. Data extraction was completed independently by multiple reviewers before a consensus was made. RESULTS: Nine studies that included 1039 participants were identified. The 4-item Clinical Dehydration Scale (CDS), the "Gorelick" score, and unstructured physician assessment were evaluated in 3, 2, and 5 studies, respectively. Bedside ultrasound, capillary digital videography, and urinary measurements were each evaluated in one study. The CDS had a positive likelihood ratio (LR) range of 1.87-11.79 and a negative LR range of 0.30-0.71 to predict 6% dehydration. When combined with the 4-item Gorelick Score, the positive LR was 1.93 (95% CI 1.07-3.49) and negative LR was of 0.40 (95% CI 0.24-0.68). Unstructured dehydration assessment had a pooled positive LR of 2.13 (95% CI 1.33-3.44) and negative LR of 0.48 (95% CI 0.28-0.82) to detect ≥ 5% dehydration. CONCLUSIONS: Overall, the clinical scales evaluated provide some improved diagnostic accuracy. However, test characteristics indicate that their ability to identify children both with and without dehydration is suboptimal. Current evidence does not support the routine use of ultrasound or urinalysis to determine dehydration severity.
OBJECTIVE: To determine the most accurate, noninvasive method of assessing dehydration. STUDY DESIGN: The following data sources were searched: electronic databases, gray literature, scientific meetings, reference lists, and authors of unpublished studies. Eligible studies were comparative outpatient evaluations that used an accepted reference standard and were conducted in developed countries in children aged <18 years with gastroenteritis. Data extraction was completed independently by multiple reviewers before a consensus was made. RESULTS: Nine studies that included 1039 participants were identified. The 4-item Clinical Dehydration Scale (CDS), the "Gorelick" score, and unstructured physician assessment were evaluated in 3, 2, and 5 studies, respectively. Bedside ultrasound, capillary digital videography, and urinary measurements were each evaluated in one study. The CDS had a positive likelihood ratio (LR) range of 1.87-11.79 and a negative LR range of 0.30-0.71 to predict 6% dehydration. When combined with the 4-item Gorelick Score, the positive LR was 1.93 (95% CI 1.07-3.49) and negative LR was of 0.40 (95% CI 0.24-0.68). Unstructured dehydration assessment had a pooled positive LR of 2.13 (95% CI 1.33-3.44) and negative LR of 0.48 (95% CI 0.28-0.82) to detect ≥ 5% dehydration. CONCLUSIONS: Overall, the clinical scales evaluated provide some improved diagnostic accuracy. However, test characteristics indicate that their ability to identify children both with and without dehydration is suboptimal. Current evidence does not support the routine use of ultrasound or urinalysis to determine dehydration severity.
Authors: Aleisha M Nabower; Matt Hall; Jason Burrows; Amanda Dave; Ashley Deschamp; Chinenye R Dike; Joshua C Euteneuer; Teri Mauch; Russell McCulloh; Laura Ortmann; Kari Simonsen; Gwenn Skar; Jessica Snowden; Veronica Taylor; Jessica L Markham Journal: Hosp Pediatr Date: 2020-06-03
Authors: Naila Cannes do Nascimento; Andrea Pires Dos Santos; Rodrigo Mohallem; Uma K Aryal; Jun Xie; Abigail Cox; M Preeti Sivasankar Journal: J Proteomics Date: 2021-11-23 Impact factor: 4.044
Authors: Adam C Levine; Justin Glavis-Bloom; Payal Modi; Sabiha Nasrin; Bita Atika; Soham Rege; Sarah Robertson; Christopher H Schmid; Nur H Alam Journal: Lancet Glob Health Date: 2016-08-23 Impact factor: 26.763
Authors: Saadiyah Bilal; Eric Nelson; Lars Meisner; Mahfuj Alam; Saad Al Amin; Yokabed Ashenafi; Shivani Teegala; Al Fazal Khan; Nur Alam; Adam Levine Journal: Am J Trop Med Hyg Date: 2018-05-10 Impact factor: 2.345
Authors: Otto G Vanderkooi; Jianling Xie; Bonita E Lee; Xiao-Li Pang; Linda Chui; Daniel C Payne; Judy MacDonald; Samina Ali; Shannon MacDonald; Steve Drews; Lara Osterreicher; Kelly Kim; Stephen B Freedman Journal: Eur J Clin Microbiol Infect Dis Date: 2019-09-09 Impact factor: 3.267
Authors: Elizabeth C Powell; Cindy G Roskind; David Schnadower; Cody S Olsen; T Charles Casper; Phillip I Tarr; Karen J O'Connell; Adam C Levine; Naveen Poonai; Suzanne Schuh; Alexander J Rogers; Seema R Bhatt; Serge Gouin; Prashant Mahajan; Cheryl Vance; Katrina Hurley; Ken J Farion; Robert E Sapien; Stephen B Freedman Journal: Ann Emerg Med Date: 2021-08-11 Impact factor: 6.762
Authors: Stephen B Freedman; Cindy G Roskind; Suzanne Schuh; John M VanBuren; Jesse G Norris; Phillip I Tarr; Katrina Hurley; Adam C Levine; Alexander Rogers; Seema Bhatt; Serge Gouin; Prashant Mahajan; Cheryl Vance; Elizabeth C Powell; Ken J Farion; Robert Sapien; Karen O'Connell; Naveen Poonai; David Schnadower Journal: Pediatrics Date: 2021-05-20 Impact factor: 9.703
Authors: Payal Modi; Justin Glavis-Bloom; Sabiha Nasrin; Allysia Guy; Erika P Chowa; Nathan Dvor; Daniel A Dworkis; Michael Oh; David M Silvestri; Stephen Strasberg; Soham Rege; Vicki E Noble; Nur H Alam; Adam C Levine Journal: PLoS One Date: 2016-01-14 Impact factor: 3.240