A prospective trial comparing isotonic with hypotonic maintenance fluids for prevention of hospital-acquired hyponatraemia
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Recent literature suggests that hypotonic fluids increase the risk of hospital-acquired hyponatraemia; despite this, hypotonic fluids are widely used. OBJECTIVES: To compare the change in serum sodium following the use of hypotonic (0.3% saline, 0.45% saline) or isotonic (0.9% saline) intravenous (IV) maintenance solutions in hospitalised children. STUDY DESIGN: This was a randomised controlled trial. Children aged 3 months to 15 years with medical or surgical disorders were randomised to receive one of three maintenance IV fluids: two hypotonic solutions (3.3% dextrose in 0.3% saline or 5% dextrose in 0.45% saline) and one isotonic solution (5% dextrose in 0.9% saline). The primary outcome was serum sodium levels at 8 hours. Secondary outcomes included the incidence of hospital-acquired hyponatraemia, adverse events attributable to IV solutions and length of hospital stay. RESULTS: 151 children were assigned randomly to receive 0.3% saline (n = 49), 0.45% saline (n = 50) or 0.9% saline (n = 52). Baseline characteristics were similar for the three groups. At 8 hours, mean (SD) serum sodium was lower in the hypotonic solutions groups [0.3% saline 134.65 (1.9) mmol/L, 0.45% saline 134.90 (2.3) mmol/L than 0.9% saline 137.98 (2.8) mmol/L] (P < 0.0001). The incidence of hospital-acquired hyponatraemia was higher in the hypotonic groups [0.3% saline 10/49 (20.4%), 0.45% saline 11/50 (22%) than 0.9% saline 1/52 (1.9%), P = 0.006). There were no differences in other adverse effects or length of hospital stay between the groups. CONCLUSION: Hypotonic IV solutions increase the incidence of hospital-acquired hyponatraemia. Isotonic solutions are a safer alternative.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".