Scolaris Content Display Scolaris Content Display

Contenido relacionado

Ir a:

Revisiones y protocolos relacionados

Topics

Temas

Risk of bias graph: review authors' judgements about each risk of bias item presented as percentages across all included studies.
Figuras y tablas -
Figure 1

Risk of bias graph: review authors' judgements about each risk of bias item presented as percentages across all included studies.

Ir a la figura de la revisiónAbrir en una pestaña nueva

Risk of bias summary: review authors' judgements about each risk of bias item for each included study.
Figuras y tablas -
Figure 2

Risk of bias summary: review authors' judgements about each risk of bias item for each included study.

Ir a la figura de la revisiónAbrir en una pestaña nueva

Comparison 1 Maintenance fluids versus restricted fluids, Outcome 1 Death.
Figuras y tablas -
Analysis 1.1

Comparison 1 Maintenance fluids versus restricted fluids, Outcome 1 Death.

Ir a la figura de la revisiónAbrir en una pestaña nueva

Comparison 1 Maintenance fluids versus restricted fluids, Outcome 2 Severe neurological sequelae.
Figuras y tablas -
Analysis 1.2

Comparison 1 Maintenance fluids versus restricted fluids, Outcome 2 Severe neurological sequelae.

Ir a la figura de la revisiónAbrir en una pestaña nueva

Comparison 1 Maintenance fluids versus restricted fluids, Outcome 3 Mild to moderate neurological sequelae.
Figuras y tablas -
Analysis 1.3

Comparison 1 Maintenance fluids versus restricted fluids, Outcome 3 Mild to moderate neurological sequelae.

Ir a la figura de la revisiónAbrir en una pestaña nueva

Comparison 1 Maintenance fluids versus restricted fluids, Outcome 4 Hemiparesis/hemiplegia.
Figuras y tablas -
Analysis 1.4

Comparison 1 Maintenance fluids versus restricted fluids, Outcome 4 Hemiparesis/hemiplegia.

Ir a la figura de la revisiónAbrir en una pestaña nueva

Comparison 1 Maintenance fluids versus restricted fluids, Outcome 5 Spasticity.
Figuras y tablas -
Analysis 1.5

Comparison 1 Maintenance fluids versus restricted fluids, Outcome 5 Spasticity.

Ir a la figura de la revisiónAbrir en una pestaña nueva

Comparison 1 Maintenance fluids versus restricted fluids, Outcome 6 Seizures.
Figuras y tablas -
Analysis 1.6

Comparison 1 Maintenance fluids versus restricted fluids, Outcome 6 Seizures.

Ir a la figura de la revisiónAbrir en una pestaña nueva

Comparison 1 Maintenance fluids versus restricted fluids, Outcome 7 Visual impairment.
Figuras y tablas -
Analysis 1.7

Comparison 1 Maintenance fluids versus restricted fluids, Outcome 7 Visual impairment.

Ir a la figura de la revisiónAbrir en una pestaña nueva

Comparison 1 Maintenance fluids versus restricted fluids, Outcome 8 No response to sound.
Figuras y tablas -
Analysis 1.8

Comparison 1 Maintenance fluids versus restricted fluids, Outcome 8 No response to sound.

Ir a la figura de la revisiónAbrir en una pestaña nueva

Comparison 1 Maintenance fluids versus restricted fluids, Outcome 9 Oedema.
Figuras y tablas -
Analysis 1.9

Comparison 1 Maintenance fluids versus restricted fluids, Outcome 9 Oedema.

Ir a la figura de la revisiónAbrir en una pestaña nueva

Comparison 1 Maintenance fluids versus restricted fluids, Outcome 10 Total body water ‐ fall after 48 hours.
Figuras y tablas -
Analysis 1.10

Comparison 1 Maintenance fluids versus restricted fluids, Outcome 10 Total body water ‐ fall after 48 hours.

Ir a la figura de la revisiónAbrir en una pestaña nueva

Comparison 1 Maintenance fluids versus restricted fluids, Outcome 11 Extracellular water ‐ fall after 48 hours.
Figuras y tablas -
Analysis 1.11

Comparison 1 Maintenance fluids versus restricted fluids, Outcome 11 Extracellular water ‐ fall after 48 hours.

Ir a la figura de la revisiónAbrir en una pestaña nueva

Comparison 1 Maintenance fluids versus restricted fluids, Outcome 12 Serum sodium.
Figuras y tablas -
Analysis 1.12

Comparison 1 Maintenance fluids versus restricted fluids, Outcome 12 Serum sodium.

Ir a la figura de la revisiónAbrir en una pestaña nueva

Comparison 1 Maintenance fluids versus restricted fluids, Outcome 13 Urinary sodium.
Figuras y tablas -
Analysis 1.13

Comparison 1 Maintenance fluids versus restricted fluids, Outcome 13 Urinary sodium.

Ir a la figura de la revisiónAbrir en una pestaña nueva

Comparison 1 Maintenance fluids versus restricted fluids, Outcome 14 Plasma osmolality ‐ change after 48 hours.
Figuras y tablas -
Analysis 1.14

Comparison 1 Maintenance fluids versus restricted fluids, Outcome 14 Plasma osmolality ‐ change after 48 hours.

Ir a la figura de la revisiónAbrir en una pestaña nueva
Summary of findings for the main comparison. Maintenance fluids versus restricted fluids for acute bacterial meningitis in paediatric populations

Maintenance fluids versus restricted fluids for acute bacterial meningitis in paediatric populations

Patient or population: patients with acute bacterial meningitis in paediatric populations 1
Settings: Hospital Inpatient Department
Intervention: Maintenance fluids versus restricted fluids

Outcomes

Illustrative comparative risks* (95% CI)

Relative effect
(95% CI)

No. of participants
(studies)

Quality of the evidence
(GRADE)

Comments

Assumed risk

Corresponding risk

Control

Maintenance fluids versus restricted fluids

Death ‐ all patients

Study population

RR 0.82
(0.53 to 1.27)

407
(2 studies)

⊕⊕⊕⊝
moderate2,3

186 per 1000

153 per 1000
(99 to 237)

Moderate

213 per 1000

175 per 1000
(113 to 271)

Severe neurological sequelae ‐ acute (within the first 4 weeks)

Study population

RR 0.67
(0.41 to 1.08)

407
(2 studies)

⊕⊝⊝⊝
very low3,4

176 per 1000

118 per 1000
(72 to 191)

Moderate

252 per 1000

169 per 1000
(103 to 272)

Severe neurological sequelae ‐ chronic (after the first 4 weeks)

Study population

RR 0.42
(0.2 to 0.89)

351
(1 study)

⊕⊕⊕⊝
moderate5,6

121 per 1000

51 per 1000
(24 to 107)

Moderate

121 per 1000

51 per 1000
(24 to 108)

Mild to moderate neurological sequelae

Study population

RR 1.24
(0.58 to 2.65)

357
(1 study)

⊕⊕⊕⊝
moderate7

62 per 1000

78 per 1000
(36 to 166)

Moderate

63 per 1000

78 per 1000
(37 to 167)

*The basis for the assumed risk (e.g. the median control group risk across studies) is provided in footnotes. The corresponding risk (and its 95% Confidence Interval) is based on the assumed risk in the comparison group and the relative effect of the intervention (and its 95% CI).
CI: confidence interval; RR: risk ratio;

GRADE Working Group grades of evidence
High quality: Further research is very unlikely to change our confidence in the estimate of effect.
Moderate quality: Further research is likely to have an important impact on our confidence in the estimate of effect and may change the estimate.
Low quality: Further research is very likely to have an important impact on our confidence in the estimate of effect and is likely to change the estimate.
Very low quality: We are very uncertain about the estimate.

1 No studies were found comparing different intravenous fluid regimens in adult populations in the systematic review.
2Duke 2002 and Singhi 1995 both have high risk of performance and detection bias, but this would not affect the mortality outcome. We did not downgrade in spite of the unclear risk of selection bias since it contributed to only 16.4% of weight and sensitivity analysis did not alter the effect estimates much. There was no risk of reporting bias for Singhi 1995 for the outcome of death.
3 The upper and lower limits of the 95% CI of the pooled estimate are very wide and thus indicate serious imprecision.
4 In Singhi 1995 selection bias was unclear and in both Duke 2002 and Singhi 1995 the performance and detection bias were at high risk. All this indicates very serious risk of bias for this outcome.
5 In Duke 2002 performance and detection bias were at high risk.
6 There was just one study so no downgrading was done for imprecision.
7Duke 2002 had a high risk of performance and detection bias which will cause serious risk of bias for evalulation of mild to moderate neurological sequelae.

Figuras y tablas -
Summary of findings for the main comparison. Maintenance fluids versus restricted fluids for acute bacterial meningitis in paediatric populations
Ir a la tabla de la revisión
Comparison 1. Maintenance fluids versus restricted fluids

Outcome or subgroup title

No. of studies

No. of participants

Statistical method

Effect size

1 Death Show forest plot

2

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

Subtotals only

1.1 All participants

2

407

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.82 [0.53, 1.27]

1.2 Participants with hyponatraemia

1

26

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.15 [0.01, 2.50]

1.3 Participants without hyponatraemia

1

24

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.79 [0.16, 3.90]

2 Severe neurological sequelae Show forest plot

2

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

Subtotals only

2.1 Acute (within the first 4 weeks)

2

407

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.67 [0.41, 1.08]

2.2 Chronic (after the first 4 weeks)

1

351

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.42 [0.20, 0.89]

2.3 Participants without hyponatraemia

1

24

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.59 [0.13, 2.64]

2.4 Participants with hyponatraemia

1

26

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.91 [0.34, 2.47]

3 Mild to moderate neurological sequelae Show forest plot

1

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

Totals not selected

3.1 At 14 days

1

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.0 [0.0, 0.0]

4 Hemiparesis/hemiplegia Show forest plot

1

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

Totals not selected

4.1 At 14 days

1

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.0 [0.0, 0.0]

5 Spasticity Show forest plot

1

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

Totals not selected

5.1 At 14 days

1

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.0 [0.0, 0.0]

6 Seizures Show forest plot

1

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

Totals not selected

6.1 Within the first 72 hours

1

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.0 [0.0, 0.0]

6.2 At 14 days

1

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.0 [0.0, 0.0]

7 Visual impairment Show forest plot

1

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

Totals not selected

7.1 At 14 days

1

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.0 [0.0, 0.0]

8 No response to sound Show forest plot

1

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

Totals not selected

8.1 At 14 days

1

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.0 [0.0, 0.0]

9 Oedema Show forest plot

1

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

Totals not selected

9.1 Acute facial oedema

1

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.0 [0.0, 0.0]

9.2 Acute pulmonary oedema

1

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.0 [0.0, 0.0]

9.3 Acute hydrocephalus

1

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.0 [0.0, 0.0]

10 Total body water ‐ fall after 48 hours Show forest plot

1

Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)

Totals not selected

10.1 Participants without hyponatraemia

1

Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.0 [0.0, 0.0]

10.2 Participants with hyponatraemia

1

Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.0 [0.0, 0.0]

11 Extracellular water ‐ fall after 48 hours Show forest plot

1

Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)

Totals not selected

11.1 Participants without hyponatraemia

1

Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.0 [0.0, 0.0]

11.2 Participants with hyponatraemia

1

Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.0 [0.0, 0.0]

12 Serum sodium Show forest plot

2

Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)

Totals not selected

12.1 All participants (24 hours)

1

Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.0 [0.0, 0.0]

12.2 Participants with hyponatraemia (48 hours)

1

Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.0 [0.0, 0.0]

12.3 Participants without hyponatraemia (48 hours)

1

Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.0 [0.0, 0.0]

12.4 Change from baseline at 48 hours ‐ without hyponatraemia

1

Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.0 [0.0, 0.0]

12.5 Change from baseline at 48 hours ‐ with hyponatraemia

1

Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.0 [0.0, 0.0]

13 Urinary sodium Show forest plot

1

Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)

Totals not selected

13.1 Participants without hyponatraemia (48 hours)

1

Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.0 [0.0, 0.0]

13.2 Participants with hyponatraemia (48 hours)

1

Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.0 [0.0, 0.0]

13.3 Change from baseline at 48 hours ‐ without hyponatraemia

1

Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.0 [0.0, 0.0]

13.4 Change from baseline at 48 hours ‐ with hyponatraemia

1

Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.0 [0.0, 0.0]

14 Plasma osmolality ‐ change after 48 hours Show forest plot

1

Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)

Totals not selected

14.1 Participants without hyponatraemia

1

Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.0 [0.0, 0.0]

14.2 Participants with hyponatraemia

1

Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.0 [0.0, 0.0]
Figuras y tablas -
Comparison 1. Maintenance fluids versus restricted fluids
Ir a la tabla de la revisión