Evidence Hub

Comparison of clinical and biochemical markers of dehydration with the clinical dehydration scale in children: a case comparison trial

Tam RK, Wong H, Plint A, Lepage N, Filler G

BMC pediatrics, 2014

73 participants · 26 citations

Abstract

Background: The clinical dehydration scale (CDS) is a quick, easy-to-use tool with 4 clinical items and a score of 1-8 that serves to classify dehydration in children with gastroenteritis as no, some or moderate/severe dehydration. Studies validating the CDS (Friedman JN) with a comparison group remain elusive. We hypothesized that the CDS correlates with a wide spectrum of established markers of dehydration, making it an appropriate and easy-to-use clinical tool.

Methods: This study was designed as a prospective double-cohort trial in a single tertiary care center. Children with diarrhea and vomiting, who clinically required intravenous fluids for rehydration, were compared with minor trauma patients who required intravenous needling for conscious sedation. We compared the CDS with clinical and urinary markers (urinary electrolytes, proteins, ratios and fractional excretions) for dehydration in both groups using receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curves to determine the area under the curve (AUC).

Results: We enrolled 73 children (male = 36) in the dehydration group and 143 (male = 105) in the comparison group. Median age was 32 months (range 3-214) in the dehydration and 96 months (range 2.6-214 months, p < 0.0001) in the trauma group. Median CDS was 3 (range 0-8) within the dehydration group and 0 in the comparison group (p < 0.0001). The following parameters were statistically significant (p < 0.05) between the comparison group and the dehydrated group: difference…

How strong is the evidence?

Evidence Hub reads this as a clinical trial, done in people. Its evidence level is 3 of 5 (Moderate · trial / cohort / secondary analysis). Trials without a large randomized design, cohorts and secondary analyses give moderate evidence. Reported size: 73 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