↓ Skip to main content

Rehydration with IV fluid and oral glycerol

Overview of attention for article published in Scandinavian Journal of Medicine & Science in Sports, May 2015
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

twitter
1 X user
facebook
1 Facebook page

Citations

dimensions_citation
3 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
95 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Rehydration with IV fluid and oral glycerol
Published in
Scandinavian Journal of Medicine & Science in Sports, May 2015
DOI 10.1111/sms.12367
Pubmed ID
Authors

S. P. van Rosendal, N. A. Strobel, M. A. Osborne, R. G. Fassett, J. S. Coombes

Abstract

Athletes use intravenous (IV) saline in an attempt to maximize rehydration. The diuresis from IV rehydration may be circumvented through the concomitant use of oral glycerol. We examined the effects of rehydrating with differing regimes of oral and IV fluid, with or without oral glycerol, on hydration, urine, and endocrine indices. Nine endurance-trained men were dehydrated by 4% bodyweight, then rehydrated with 150% of the fluid lost via four protocols: (a) oral = oral fluid only; (b) oral glycerol = oral fluid with added glycerol (1.5 g/kg); (c) IV = 50% IV fluid, 50% oral fluid; and (d) IV with oral glycerol = 50% IV fluid, 50% oral fluid with added glycerol (1.5 g/kg), using a randomized, crossover design. They then completed a cycling performance test. Plasma volume restoration was highest in IV with oral glycerol > IV > oral glycerol  > oral. Urine volume was reduced in both IV trials compared with oral. IV and IV with oral glycerol resulted in lower aldosterone levels during rehydration and performance, and lower cortisol levels during rehydration. IV with oral glycerol resulted in the greatest fluid retention. In summary, the IV conditions resulted in greater fluid retention compared with oral and lower levels of fluid regulatory and stress hormones compared with both oral conditions.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 X user who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 95 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United Kingdom 1 1%
Brazil 1 1%
Unknown 93 98%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 19 20%
Student > Ph. D. Student 12 13%
Researcher 9 9%
Student > Bachelor 9 9%
Student > Doctoral Student 7 7%
Other 21 22%
Unknown 18 19%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Sports and Recreations 20 21%
Medicine and Dentistry 16 17%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 11 12%
Nursing and Health Professions 8 8%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 5 5%
Other 14 15%
Unknown 21 22%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 06 July 2016.
All research outputs
#20,027,150
of 25,477,125 outputs
Outputs from Scandinavian Journal of Medicine & Science in Sports
#2,610
of 2,956 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#193,198
of 279,287 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Scandinavian Journal of Medicine & Science in Sports
#75
of 82 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,477,125 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 18th percentile – i.e., 18% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 2,956 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 20.3. This one is in the 9th percentile – i.e., 9% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 279,287 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 25th percentile – i.e., 25% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 82 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 4th percentile – i.e., 4% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.