Oral rehydration therapy without bicarbonate for prevention and treatment of dehydration: a double-blind controlled trial

2007 ◽  
Vol 2 (3) ◽  
pp. 253-262 ◽  
Author(s):  
E. J. ELLIOTT ◽  
J. C. M. ARMITSTEAD ◽  
M. J. G. FARTHING ◽  
J. A. WALKER-SMITH
2019 ◽  
Vol 32 (01) ◽  
pp. 010-017
Author(s):  
Ramesh Supadu Bawaskar ◽  
Vaishali Haribhau Shinde

Introduction Dengue ranks as the most important mosquito-borne viral disease in the world, with its incidence being increased 30-fold in the past 50 years. An epidemic of dengue/dengue haemorrhagic fever (DHF) is a major public health problem causing significant health and economic burden. The dengue crisis is further complicated by the lack of vaccines and antiviral drugs for prevention and control of this disease. This systematic review investigates and evaluates various studies done with homoeopathic therapy for the prevention and treatment of dengue fever. Objective Evaluate the usefulness of homoeopathy for a prevention and treatment of dengue fever through literature review and to develop the strategy for future research. Method A comprehensive search in electronic database aimed to target the available literature of observational studies, randomised trials, controlled trials, case studies on dengue fever in homoeopathy (excluding non–peer-reviewed journals) and limited to English language. Result A literary search through various databases helped identify a few significant studies as one double-blind placebo-controlled trial, one comparative clinical study, one case study and two community-based studies.The community-based studies showed positive results for the role of homoeopathic medicines as a prophylactic medicine. The double-blind placebo-controlled trial showed no difference in outcome between the two groups. The comparative clinical study showed that the homoeopathic combination appeared to be a more potent treatment against dengue fever when compare with standard maintenance therapy. The case study shows favourable results, but the sample size is only of 10 cases. Conclusion In future, high-quality randomised controlled trial (RCT), vitro and animal model studies are required to support the efficacy of homoeopathic therapeutics.


2013 ◽  
Vol 18 (4) ◽  
pp. 1189-1194 ◽  
Author(s):  
Amélie E Coudert ◽  
Agnès Ostertag ◽  
Vanessa Baaroun ◽  
Catherine Artaud ◽  
Chantal Ifi-Naulin ◽  
...  

Author(s):  
Erich Smith

<p>A critical appraisal and clinical application of Itou K, Fukuyama T, Sasabuchi Y, et al. Safety and efficacy of oral rehydration therapy until 2 h before surgery: a multicenter randomized controlled trial. <em>Journal of Anesthesia</em>. 2012;26(1):20-27. doi: <a href="https://doi.org/10.1007/s00540-011-1261-x">10.1007/s00540-011-1261-x</a>.</p>


CJEM ◽  
2018 ◽  
Vol 20 (S1) ◽  
pp. S35-S35
Author(s):  
S. Freedman ◽  
S. Soofi ◽  
A. Willan ◽  
S. Williamson-Urquhart ◽  
N. Ali ◽  
...  

Introduction: In high-income countries, vomiting often impedes oral rehydration therapy, leading to intravenous rehydration fluid administration to children with acute gastroenteritis. Ondansetron administration reduces vomiting and intravenous fluid administration in this population. We evaluated whether ondansetron is similarly effective when employed in Pakistan. Methods: In this 2-hospital, double-blind, placebo-controlled, emergency department-based, randomized trial, we recruited children aged 0·5 to 5·0 years, without dehydration, who had diarrhea and 1 episode of vomiting within 4 hours of arrival. Patients were randomly assigned (1:1), via an internet-based randomization service, using a stratified, variable block randomization scheme, to receive a single dose of oral ondansetron or placebo. The primary endpoint was intravenous rehydration (administration of 20 ml/kg over 4 hours of an isotonic fluid) within 72 hours of randomization. All randomized children were analysed. Results: From July 3, 2014, to January 12, 2017, 626 children were randomized. Intravenous rehydration was provided to 10.8% (34/314) and 10.3% (27/312) of children administered placebo and ondansetron, respectively (OR: 0.946; 95% CI: 0.564, 1.587; P=0.834). A regression model fitted with treatment group and adjusted for antiemetic administration and vomiting frequency in the preceding 24 hours, yielded similar results; OR=0.952; 95% CI: 0.570, 1.589; P=0.850. There was no evidence of interaction between treatment group and age (P=0.974), 3 diarrheal stools in the preceding 24 hours (P=0.983) or 3 vomits in the preceding 24 hours (P=0.554). During the 4-hour study observation period, 24.0% (75/314) and 19.6% (61/312) of children in the placebo and ondansetron groups vomited, respectively; OR: 0.774; 95%CI: 0.528, 1.133; P=0.187. Conclusion: Ondansetron administration did not significantly reduce intravenous rehydration use, suggesting that in children without dehydration, ondansetron administration does not significantly alter the disease course and should not be administered to this group of children.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document