Search reports, ask a question, or jump to a page.
The problem
Intervention: Intravenous rehydration versus oral rehydration (standard of care)
Who it was tested with: Children with severe acute malnutrition (including 72 with kwashiorkor) hospitalised with severe dehydration secondary to gastroenteritis.
Children or communities are compared with a group that did not receive the intervention, or followed over years. This is the design that best separates what the intervention did from everything else that changed.
"Randomised trials of IVR and OR (standard of care)" with "pooled risk ratio (RR) for in-hospital mortality for IVR versus OR is 0.71 (95% CI 0.46 to 1.10; I2=0.0%) with moderate certainty of evidence." The confidence interval includes the null value (1.0), meaning the evidence cannot definitively establish whether intravenous rehydration is superior to oral rehydration for reducing mortality in this population.
Only three randomised trials identified with small sample sizes; two had some risk of bias and one had low risk of bias; wide confidence intervals for primary outcome cross the null; heterogeneity testing showed no significant differences by region or risk of bias rating.
Across countries and designs
1 study · 0 countries
Not yet reviewed by a person. Model output is not AICS's view until reviewed.
claude-haiku-4-5-20251001 · synth-v1
