Scolaris Content Display Scolaris Content Display

Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews

Solución salina de rehidratación oral para el tratamiento del cólera: soluciones ≤ 270 mOsm/l versus soluciones ≥ 310 mOsm/l

Información

DOI:
https://doi.org/10.1002/14651858.CD003754.pub3Copiar DOI
Base de datos:
  1. Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews
Versión publicada:
  1. 07 diciembre 2011see what's new
Tipo:
  1. Intervention
Etapa:
  1. Review
Grupo Editorial Cochrane:

  1. Grupo Cochrane de Enfermedades infecciosas

Clasificada:
  1. Actualización no planificada

    Research area no longer active

    This is not a current research question.

    Evaluada: 23 April 2019

Copyright:
  1. Copyright © 2019 The Cochrane Collaboration. Published by John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

Cifras del artículo

Altmetric:

Citado por:

Citado 0 veces por enlace Crossref Cited-by

Contraer

Autores

  • Alfred Musekiwa

    Correspondencia a: Wits Reproductive Health & HIV Institute (WRHI), Faculty of Health Sciences, University of the Witwatersrand, Johannesburg, South Africa

    [email protected]

    South African Cochrane Centre, Medical Research Council of South Africa, Cape Town, South Africa

  • Jimmy Volmink

    Faculty of Health Sciences, Stellenbosch University, Tygerberg, South Africa

    South African Cochrane Centre, Medical Research Council of South Africa, Cape Town, South Africa

Contributions of authors

Colleen Murphy (CM) initiated the review and developed the eligibility and data extraction forms, with Seokyung Hahn (SH) and Jimmy Volmink (JV) providing input. CM and JV selected the trials for inclusion in the initial version of the review. CM, JV and Alfred Musekiwa (AM) extracted the data and assessed trial quality, and CM contacted authors for additional information for the first published version of the review. CM and AM entered the data and conducted the analysis. CM wrote the first draft of the review, with all reviewers contributing to the final text and analysis. AM responded to editor's comments and drafted this review update in line with RevMan 5.

Sources of support

Internal sources

  • South African Medical Research Council, South Africa.

  • Stellenbosch University, South Africa.

  • Wits Reproductive Health and HIV Institute (WRHI), South Africa.

External sources

  • Department for International Development, UK.

Declarations of interest

None known.

Acknowledgements

The protocol for this review was developed during the Mentorship Programme organized by the Cochrane Infectious Diseases Group in November 2001. The UK Department for International Development supports this Programme through the Effective Health Care Alliance Programme at the Liverpool School of Tropical Medicine.

We would like to thank Colleen Murphy who first initiated the review, and was the guarantor on the first published version. Additionally we would like to acknowledge Dr Seokyung Hahn, who contributed to the original review design and analysis.

We wish to thank Professor Paul Garner for his guidance in developing the protocol. We are also grateful to trial authors who provided us with clarifications and unpublished data.

Version history

Published

Title

Stage

Authors

Version

2011 Dec 07

Oral rehydration salt solution for treating cholera: ≤ 270 mOsm/L solutions vs ≥ 310 mOsm/L solutions

Review

Alfred Musekiwa, Jimmy Volmink

https://doi.org/10.1002/14651858.CD003754.pub3

2004 Oct 18

Reduced osmolarity oral rehydration solution for treating cholera

Review

Colleen K Murphy, Seokyung Hahn, Jimmy Volmink

https://doi.org/10.1002/14651858.CD003754.pub2

2002 Jul 22

Reduced osmolarity oral rehydration solution for treating cholera

Protocol

Colleen Murphy, Seokyung S Hahn, Jimmy J Volmink

https://doi.org/10.1002/14651858.CD003754

Differences between protocol and review

The title has been changed to 'Oral rehydration solution for treating cholera: ORS ≤ 270 mOsm/L solutions vs ORS ≥ 310 mOsm/L solutions'. The secondary outcome stool volume was changed to stool output to accommodate some stool weight measurements as reported by other trials.

We had planned the following analyses but they were not appropriate for the data available: (1) analysis of geometric means and standard deviation using log normal approximation; (2) analysis of time‐to‐event or censored data, when available, to estimate the log hazards ratio and its variance within each trial, using methods proposed by Parmar 1998; (3) examination of funnel plots for asymmetry indicative of publication bias; and (4) sensitivity analysis to determine the degree to which the results were influenced by the adequacy of allocation concealment.