Evidence Hub

A comparative analysis of oral VS. intravenous rehydration therapy in pediatric acute gastroenteritis

Dr Anum Ashraf

2024

180 participants

Abstract

Objective: This study aimed to compare the efficacy and safety of oral rehydration therapy (ORT) versus intravenous rehydration therapy (IVT) in treating pediatric patients with acute gastroenteritis. Methods: A randomized controlled trial was conducted involving 180 pediatric patients diagnosed with acute gastroenteritis. Participants were randomly assigned to one of two groups: ORT (n=90) or IVT (n=90). Baseline demographic and clinical data were collected for all participants. The primary outcome measure was the rate of rehydration, assessed by clinical improvement in hydration status. Secondary outcomes included the duration of hospitalization, incidence of complications, and patient/caregiver satisfaction. Results: IVRT achieved faster time to rehydration (4.0 ± 1.0 hours) compared to ORT (6.0 ± 1.5 hours, p < 0.001*) and led to a significantly shorter hospital stay (1.2 ± 0.4 days) than ORT (1.5 ± 0.5 days, p = 0.02*). Resolution of vomiting occurred more quickly with IVRT (16.11 ± 3.24 hours) versus ORT (18.98 ± 4.00 hours, p = 0.04*). Conclusion: Both oral and intravenous rehydration therapies are effective and safe for treating pediatric acute gastroenteritis. ORT has the added advantage of shorter hospitalization duration, making it a preferable option in appropriate clinical settings.

How strong is the evidence?

Evidence Hub reads this as a randomized trial, done in people. Its evidence level is 2 of 5 (High · randomized trial). Randomized trials of a reasonable size are the strongest single-study design. Reported size: 180 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