We have located links that may give you full text access.
JOURNAL ARTICLE
META-ANALYSIS
REVIEW
Polymer-based oral rehydration solution for treating acute watery diarrhoea.
Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews 2009 April 16
BACKGROUND: Acute diarrhoea is one of the principal causes of morbidity and mortality among children in low-income countries. Glucose-based ORS helps replace fluid and prevent further dehydration from acute diarrhoea. Since 2004, the World Health Organization has recommended the osmolarity < 270 mOsm/L (ORS 310 mOsm/L formulation (ORS >/= 310). Glucose polymer-based ORS (eg prepared using rice or wheat) slowly releases glucose and may be superior.
OBJECTIVES: To compare polymer-based ORS with glucose-based ORS for treating acute watery diarrhoea.
SEARCH STRATEGY: In September 2008, we searched the Cochrane Infectious Diseases Group Specialized Register, CENTRAL (The Cochrane Library 2008, Issue 3), MEDLINE, EMBASE, LILACS, and mRCT. We also contacted researchers, organizations, and pharmaceutical companies, and searched reference lists.
SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomized controlled trials of people with acute watery diarrhoea (cholera and non-cholera associated) comparing polymer-based and glucose-based ORS (with identical electrolyte contents).
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two authors independently assessed the search results and risk of bias, and extracted data. In multiple treatment arms with two or more treatment groups, we combined outcomes as appropriate and compared collectively with the control group.
MAIN RESULTS: Thirty-four trials involving 4214 participants met the inclusion criteria: 27 in children, five in adults and two in both. Twelve trials used adequate methods to conceal allocation. Most compared polymer-based ORS with ORS >/= 310. There were fewer unscheduled intravenous infusions in the polymer-based ORS group compared with glucose-based ORS (ORS >/= 310 and
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Polymer-based ORS shows some advantages compared to ORS >/= 310 for treating all-cause diarrhoea, and in diarrhoea caused by cholera. Comparisons favoured the polymer-based ORS over ORS
OBJECTIVES: To compare polymer-based ORS with glucose-based ORS for treating acute watery diarrhoea.
SEARCH STRATEGY: In September 2008, we searched the Cochrane Infectious Diseases Group Specialized Register, CENTRAL (The Cochrane Library 2008, Issue 3), MEDLINE, EMBASE, LILACS, and mRCT. We also contacted researchers, organizations, and pharmaceutical companies, and searched reference lists.
SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomized controlled trials of people with acute watery diarrhoea (cholera and non-cholera associated) comparing polymer-based and glucose-based ORS (with identical electrolyte contents).
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two authors independently assessed the search results and risk of bias, and extracted data. In multiple treatment arms with two or more treatment groups, we combined outcomes as appropriate and compared collectively with the control group.
MAIN RESULTS: Thirty-four trials involving 4214 participants met the inclusion criteria: 27 in children, five in adults and two in both. Twelve trials used adequate methods to conceal allocation. Most compared polymer-based ORS with ORS >/= 310. There were fewer unscheduled intravenous infusions in the polymer-based ORS group compared with glucose-based ORS (ORS >/= 310 and
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Polymer-based ORS shows some advantages compared to ORS >/= 310 for treating all-cause diarrhoea, and in diarrhoea caused by cholera. Comparisons favoured the polymer-based ORS over ORS
Full text links
Related Resources
Get seemless 1-tap access through your institution/university
For the best experience, use the Read mobile app
All material on this website is protected by copyright, Copyright © 1994-2024 by WebMD LLC.
This website also contains material copyrighted by 3rd parties.
By using this service, you agree to our terms of use and privacy policy.
Your Privacy Choices
You can now claim free CME credits for this literature searchClaim now
Get seemless 1-tap access through your institution/university
For the best experience, use the Read mobile app