A double-blind clinical trial comparing world health organization oral rehydration solution with a reduced osmolarity solution containing equal amounts of sodium and glucose

1996 ◽  
Vol 14 (6) ◽  
pp. 791
PEDIATRICS ◽  
1994 ◽  
Vol 94 (6) ◽  
pp. 963-964
Author(s):  
Virginia L. Richmond

The article by Jacobs et al1 regarding treatment of acute childhood diarrhea with homeopathic medicine as an adjunct to the World Health Organization Oral Rehydration Solution (ORS) omits some essential measurements needed for comparison with previous literature reports and pertinent references from the last 15 years. The authors ignored the whole body of literature on rice- or cereal-based ORS (CB-ORS) that dealt with much larger patient samples and more precise measurements.2 These reports empha-sized the variability of results depending on the previous nutritional status of the child and whether adequate, nutritious diets were actually given the child on early refeeding.3


PEDIATRICS ◽  
1992 ◽  
Vol 89 (5) ◽  
pp. 980-980
Author(s):  
MARK L. TOCHEN ◽  
DON TSUKAMAKI

To the Editor.— The article by Dr Snyder, "Use and Misuse of Oral Rehydration Therapy for Diarrhea,"1 led us to review our treatment of gastroenteritis, revise our telephone protocols, and seek out rehydration solutions. Our difficulty in obtaining adequate supplies mirrored that of Dr O'Banion.2 Expense to the patient is also an important factor: commercial premixed solutions sell for $4 to $6 per quart in our area, which many families cannot pay. Our solution was to obtain from the World Health Organization the name of the US supplier of oral rehydration solution (ORS) packets and order direct from the supplier (Jianas Bros Packaging Co, 2533 SW Blvd, Kansas City, MO 64108).


2007 ◽  
Vol 47 (6) ◽  
pp. 265 ◽  
Author(s):  
Hasri Salwan ◽  
Isnada Isnada ◽  
Achirul Bakri ◽  
Rusdi Ismail ◽  
Erial Bahar

Background Oral rehydration solution (ORS) has been provensuccessfully to overcome dehydration in diarrhea. The improvementof the effectiveness of ORS is still needed to overcome some failures.Gum Arabic (GA), an indigestable starch, can enhance ORSabsorption in mice with diarrhea. It is worthy to explore its benefitsin human. Since GA is non toxic to human being, it is regardedethical to conduct effectiveness study directly in clinical setting.Objective To evaluate the effectiveness of GA supplementationto ORS in managing inpatients diarrheal cases .Methods A double blind clinical trial was conducted during Marchto September 2004 in the Department of Child Health of M. HoesinHospital, Palembang. The subjects were randomly enrolled to GA-ORS (GA) group or ORS (SO) group. Indirect measurements wereconducted on ORS absorptive enhancement by evaluating theduration of diarrhea after hospitalization, frequency of defecationduring hospitalization, ORS consumption during hospitalization,and time laps of stool consistency conversion. The effectivenessanalysis was controlled for confounders.Results Supplementation of 0.5 gram GA to 200 ml ORS could decreasethe duration of diarrhoea 15.65 hours (P=0.000) during hospitalisation,frequency of defecation during hospitalization 1.171 times/days(P=0.002), ORS consumption 38.39 ml/kg BW (P=0.029), time ofstool consistency to become semisolid 15.84 hours (P=0.000), andbecome solid 14.45 hours (P=0.002). Vomiting during hospitalizationand aged group of 6-11 months were significant confounder. However,after controlling the outcome with these confounding factors, thebenefits of GA supplementation were still significant.Conclusions GA supplementation to ORS significantly shortenthe duration of diarrhea, decreases the frequency of defecation,consumption of ORS, time of stool consistency to becomesemisolid and solid in inpatients diarrheal cases.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document