Hypotonic versus isotonic saline in hospitalised children: a systematic review
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The traditional recommendations which suggest that hypotonic intravenous (i.v.) maintenance fluids are the solutions of choice in paediatric patients have not been rigorously tested in clinical trials, and may not be appropriate for all children. AIMS: To systematically review the evidence from studies evaluating the safety of administering hypotonic versus isotonic i.v. maintenance fluids in hospitalised children. DATA SOURCES: Medline (1966-2006), Embase (1980-2006), the Cochrane Library, abstract proceedings, personal files, and reference lists. Studies that compared hypotonic to isotonic maintenance solutions in children were selected. Case reports and studies in neonates or patients with a pre-existing history of hyponatraemia were excluded. RESULTS: Six studies met the selection criteria. A meta-analysis combining these studies showed that hypotonic solutions significantly increased the risk of developing acute hyponatraemia (OR 17.22; 95% CI 8.67 to 34.2), and resulted in greater patient morbidity. CONCLUSIONS: The current practice of prescribing i.v. maintenance fluids in children is based on limited clinical experimental evidence from poorly and differently designed studies, where bias could possibly raise doubt about the results. They do not provide evidence for optimal fluid and electrolyte homoeostasis in hospitalised children. This systematic review indicates potential harm with hypotonic solutions in children, which can be anticipated and avoided with isotonic solutions. No single fluid rate or composition is ideal for all children. However, isotonic or near-isotonic solutions may be more physiological, and therefore a safer choice in the acute phase of illness and perioperative period.
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.
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) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.005 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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 it