Fluids in the treatment of diabetic ketoacidosis in children: A systematic review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
AIM: To determine the comparative effectiveness of fluid schemes for children with diabetic ketoacidosis (DKA). METHODS: We conducted a systematic review with an attempt to conduct network meta-analysis (NMA). We searched MEDLINE, EMBASE, CENTRAL, Epistemonikos, Virtual Health Library, and gray literature from inception to July 31, 2022. We included randomized controlled trials (RCTs) in children with DKA evaluating any intravenous fluid schemes. We planned to conduct NMA to compare all fluid schemes if heterogeneity was deemed acceptable. RESULTS: ), tonicity, volume, and administration systems. We identified 47 outcomes that measured clinical manifestations and metabolic control, including single and composite outcomes and substantial heterogeneity preventing statistical combination. No evidence was found of differences in neurological deterioration (main outcome), but differences were found among interventions in some comparisons to normalize acid-base status (∼2 h less with low vs. high volume); time to receive subcutaneous insulin (∼1 h less with low vs. high fluid rate); length of stay (∼6 h less with RL vs. saline); and resolution of the DKA (∼3 h less with two-bag vs. one-bag scheme). However, available evidence is scarce and poor. CONCLUSIONS: There is not enough evidence to determine the best fluid therapy in terms of fluid type, tonicity, volume, or administration time for DKA treatment. There is an urgent need for more RCTs, and the development of a core outcome set on DKA in children.
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
Direct model labels (unvalidated)
Per-model category and study-design labels from the labeling rounds. They are machine output, unvalidated, and the disagreement between models ships as data. No study design here is MEDLINE-validated yet.
| Model arm | Categories | Study design | Confidence |
|---|---|---|---|
| gemma | no category Domain: not available · Genre: Review About the Canadian research system: no · About a Canadian topic: no | Systematic review | low |
| gpt | no category Domain: not available · Genre: Review About the Canadian research system: no · About a Canadian topic: no | Systematic review | medium |
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.007 | 0.023 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.012 | 0.012 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.005 | 0.005 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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, unvalidatedLabeled directly by 2 models reading the full record.
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".