MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2343542498 · doi:10.1001/jama.2016.5352

Effect of Dilute Apple Juice and Preferred Fluids vs Electrolyte Maintenance Solution on Treatment Failure Among Children With Mild Gastroenteritis

2016· article· en· W2343542498 on OpenAlexaffabout
Stephen B. Freedman, Andrew R. Willan, Kathy Boutis, Suzanne Schuh

Bibliographic record

VenueJAMA · 2016
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicViral gastroenteritis research and epidemiology
Canadian institutionsUniversity of TorontoHospital for Sick ChildrenSickKids FoundationAlberta Children's HospitalUniversity of Calgary
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineVomitingElectrolyteDehydrationDiarrheaCrossover studyRandomized controlled trialPsychological interventionAcute gastroenteritisPediatricsAnesthesiaSurgeryInternal medicinePlaceboNursing

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

IMPORTANCE: Gastroenteritis is a common pediatric illness. Electrolyte maintenance solution is recommended to treat and prevent dehydration. Its advantage in minimally dehydrated children is unproven. OBJECTIVE: To determine if oral hydration with dilute apple juice/preferred fluids is noninferior to electrolyte maintenance solution in children with mild gastroenteritis. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: Randomized, single-blind noninferiority trial conducted between the months of October and April during the years 2010 to 2015 in a tertiary care pediatric emergency department in Toronto, Ontario, Canada. Study participants were children aged 6 to 60 months with gastroenteritis and minimal dehydration. INTERVENTIONS: Participants were randomly assigned to receive color-matched half-strength apple juice/preferred fluids (n=323) or apple-flavored electrolyte maintenance solution (n=324). Oral rehydration therapy followed institutional protocols. After discharge, the half-strength apple juice/preferred fluids group was administered fluids as desired; the electrolyte maintenance solution group replaced losses with electrolyte maintenance solution. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES: The primary outcome was a composite of treatment failure defined by any of the following occurring within 7 days of enrollment: intravenous rehydration, hospitalization, subsequent unscheduled physician encounter, protracted symptoms, crossover, and 3% or more weight loss or significant dehydration at in-person follow-up. Secondary outcomes included intravenous rehydration, hospitalization, and frequency of diarrhea and vomiting. The noninferiority margin was defined as a difference between groups of 7.5% for the primary outcome and was assessed with a 1-sided α=.025. If noninferiority was established, a 1-sided test for superiority was conducted. RESULTS: Among 647 randomized children (mean age, 28.3 months; 331 boys [51.1%]; 441 (68.2%) without evidence of dehydration), 644 (99.5%) completed follow-up. Children who were administered dilute apple juice experienced treatment failure less often than those given electrolyte maintenance solution (16.7% vs 25.0%; difference, -8.3%; 97.5% CI, -∞ to -2.0%; P < .001 for inferiority and P = .006 for superiority). Fewer children administered apple juice/preferred fluids received intravenous rehydration (2.5% vs 9.0%; difference, -6.5%; 99% CI, -11.6% to -1.8%). Hospitalization rates and diarrhea and vomiting frequency were not significantly different between groups. CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE: Among children with mild gastroenteritis and minimal dehydration, initial oral hydration with dilute apple juice followed by their preferred fluids, compared with electrolyte maintenance solution, resulted in fewer treatment failures. In many high-income countries, the use of dilute apple juice and preferred fluids as desired may be an appropriate alternative to electrolyte maintenance fluids in children with mild gastroenteritis and minimal dehydration. TRIAL REGISTRATION: clinicaltrials.gov Identifier: NCT01185054.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.096
Threshold uncertainty score0.452

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.008
GPT teacher head0.255
Teacher spread0.247 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations83
Published2016
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJAMASame topicViral gastroenteritis research and epidemiologyFrench-language works237,207