Evidence Hub

Intravenous rehydration in children with severe malnutrition and severe dehydration: a systematic review and meta-analysis

J. E. Dewez, S. Ouattara, T. Sunyoto, C. Mogaka, M. Coldiron, H. Sainna, R. Petrucci, Elizabeth C. George et al.

Archives of Disease in Childhood, 2026

484 participants

Abstract

Objectives To compare the efficacy and safety of intravenous rehydration (IVR) versus oral rehydration (OR) strategies in children with severe acute malnutrition (SAM) and severe dehydration. Design Systematic review and meta-analysis. Setting Lower-to-middle-income countries. Patients Children with SAM are hospitalised with severe dehydration secondary to gastroenteritis. Interventions Randomised trials of IVR and OR (standard of care) Main outcome measures Primary: in-hospital mortality. Secondary: fluid overload events, development of shock requiring intravenous boluses, severe electrolyte abnormalities at 24 hours and day 28 mortality. Results We identified three RCTs comprising 484 participants with severe malnutrition (72 had kwashiorkor, two had some risk of bias, and one had low risk of bias). The pooled risk ratio (RR) for in-hospital mortality for IVR versus OR is 0.71 (95% CI 0.46 to 1.10; I2=0.0%) with moderate certainty of evidence. No fluid overload events were reported, pooled RR 0.99 (95% CI 0.10 to 9.35). The pooled RR of severe hyponatraemia (sodium 145 mmol/L) or 28-day mortality with IVR versus OR (RRs 0.56, 95% CI 0.21 to 1.48; RR 2.05, 95% CI 0.50 to 8.58 and RR 0.85, 95% CI 0.44 to 1.65, respectively). Subgroup analyses for in-hospital mortality were carried out for region and risk of bias rating, giving p=0.85 and p=0.54 for heterogeneity, respectively. Conclusions The estimated effect of using IVR versus OR in children with SAM with severe…

How strong is the evidence?

Evidence Hub reads this as a meta-analysis, done in people. Its evidence level is 1 of 5 (Highest · pooled evidence). Pooled evidence from several studies sits at the top of the evidence pyramid. Reported size: 484 participants or records.

How the five levels of evidence work. The level is assigned automatically from the abstract and can be wrong, so check the paper.

Read the paper

Related studies

Go deeper in Evidence Hub

Evidence Hub adds a study data sheet (design, sample size, evidence level, key numbers), an AI summary and a chat grounded in the paper's text.

Open this study Sign up free