↓ Skip to main content

Reduced osmolarity oral rehydration solution for treating dehydration caused by acute diarrhoea in children

Overview of attention for article published in Cochrane database of systematic reviews, January 2002
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (81st percentile)
  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source

Mentioned by

twitter
1 tweeter
patent
1 patent
wikipedia
1 Wikipedia page

Citations

dimensions_citation
78 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
83 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
Reduced osmolarity oral rehydration solution for treating dehydration caused by acute diarrhoea in children
Published in
Cochrane database of systematic reviews, January 2002
DOI 10.1002/14651858.cd002847
Pubmed ID
Authors

Seokyung Hahn, Yaejean Kim, Paul Garner

Abstract

Oral rehydration solution (ORS) has reduced childhood deaths from diarrhoea in many countries. Recent studies suggest that the currently recommended formulation of ORS recommended by the World Health Organization (WHO) may not be optimal, and solutions that contain lower concentrations of sodium and glucose may be more effective. In children with acute diarrhoea, to compare reduced osmolarity glucose-based oral rehydration salt solution with international WHO formulation. The Cochrane Collaboration Trials Register, MEDLINE, and EMBASE were searched. Additional trials were identified by hand searching. Content experts were contacted. Randomised controlled trials comparing reduced osmolarity ORS solution with the WHO formulation. Outcomes sought were unscheduled intravenous fluid infusion therapy and measures of clinical illness. Data were extracted by two reviewers. We tested for heterogeneity using the chi-square statistic, conducted sensitivity analysis by allocation concealment, and the regression approach to assess funnel plot asymmetry from selective trial publication. The primary outcome was reported in 12 trials. In a meta-analysis of nine trials, reduced osmolarity ORS was associated with fewer unscheduled infusions compared with standard WHO ORS (Mantel Haenzel odds ratio 0.61, 95% confidence interval 0.47 to 0.81) with no evidence for heterogeneity between trials. No unscheduled intravenous fluid infusion therapy was required in any participant in three trials. Thirteen trials reported stool output, and data suggested less stool output in the reduced osmolarity ORS group. Vomiting was less frequent in the reduced osmolarity group in the six trials reporting this. Six trials sought hyponatraemia, with events in three studies, but no obvious difference between the two arms. In children admitted to hospital with diarrhoea, reduced osmolarity ORS when compared to WHO ORS is associated with fewer unscheduled intravenous infusions, smaller stool volume post randomisation, and less vomiting. No additional risk of developing hyponatraemia when compared with WHO ORS was detected.

Twitter Demographics

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

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 83 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Kenya 2 2%
South Africa 1 1%
Ireland 1 1%
Bangladesh 1 1%
Unknown 78 94%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 17 20%
Student > Bachelor 16 19%
Unspecified 10 12%
Student > Postgraduate 9 11%
Student > Master 9 11%
Other 22 27%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 45 54%
Unspecified 16 19%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 7 8%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 3 4%
Social Sciences 3 4%
Other 9 11%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 7. 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 17 September 2016.
All research outputs
#2,110,796
of 12,527,093 outputs
Outputs from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#4,314
of 8,923 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#49,949
of 272,342 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#117
of 221 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 12,527,093 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 83rd percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 8,923 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 21.2. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 51% of its peers.
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 272,342 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done well, scoring higher than 81% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 221 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 46th percentile – i.e., 46% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.