Scolaris Content Display Scolaris Content Display

Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews

Stosowanie płynów izotonicznych w porównaniu z hipotonicznymi przy dożylnym podawaniu płynów u dzieci

Información

DOI:
https://doi.org/10.1002/14651858.CD009457.pub2Copiar DOI
Base de datos:
  1. Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews
Versión publicada:
  1. 18 diciembre 2014see what's new
Tipo:
  1. Intervention
Etapa:
  1. Review
Grupo Editorial Cochrane:
  1. Grupo Cochrane de Lesiones

Copyright:
  1. Copyright © 2014 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

  • Sarah McNab

    Correspondencia a: c/o Centre for International Child Health, Royal Children's Hospital, Parkville, Australia

    [email protected]

  • Robert S Ware

    School of Population Health, The University of Queensland, Brisbane, Australia

    Queensland Children's Medical Research Institute, The University of Queensland, Brisbane, Australia

  • Kristen A Neville

    Sydney Children's Hospital, Randwick, Australia

  • Karen Choong

    Department of Pediatrics and Critical Care Medicine, McMaster University, Hamilton, Canada

  • Mark G Coulthard

    Queensland Children's Medical Research Institute, Royal Children's Hospital, Brisbane, Australia

    Paediatric Intensive Care Unit, Royal Children's Hospital, Brisbane, Australia

  • Trevor Duke

    Paediatrics, Royal Children's Hospital, Melbourne, Australia

  • Andrew Davidson

    Department of Anaesthetics, Royal Children's Hospital, Parkville, Australia

  • Tavey Dorofaeff

    Paediatric Intensive Care Unit, Royal Children's Hospital, Brisbane, Australia

Contributions of authors

Sarah McNab and Tavey Dorofaeff screened the titles and abstracts of all trials identified through the search for potential inclusion. Two authors independently performed data extraction for each study (each author was involved with data extraction of at least one study, with Sarah McNab involved with data extraction for each study).

The initial draft was written by Sarah McNab, with all authors contributing to draft revisions.

Robert Ware provided statistical advice and assistance.

Sources of support

Internal sources

  • No sources of support supplied

External sources

  • Murdoch Childrens Research Institute, Australia.

    Scholarship funding for Dr Sarah McNab

  • Vincent Fairfax Family Foundation Research Entry Scholarship, Royal Australasian College of Physicians, Australia.

    Scholarship funding for Dr Sarah McNab

Declarations of interest

Sarah McNab, Trevor Duke and Andrew Davidson have been involved in the design and conduct of a trial (McNab 2014), which would potentially be eligible for future revisions of this Cochrane Review.

Mark Coulthard, Robert Ware, Karen Choong and Kristen Neville were involved in the design and conduct of studies included in this Cochrane Review. We did not extract outcome or quality data from the studies we co‐author.

Tavey Dorofaeff: None known.

Acknowledgements

We thank the authors of each included study who responded to our request for further data. We also thank Dr Burcu Gorgulu for translation of the Turkish Dağli 1997 study into English.

Assistance was also provided by the Cochrane Injuries Group's Trials Search Co‐ordinator, as well as the Cochrane workshops.

Version history

Published

Title

Stage

Authors

Version

2014 Dec 18

Isotonic versus hypotonic solutions for maintenance intravenous fluid administration in children

Review

Sarah McNab, Robert S Ware, Kristen A Neville, Karen Choong, Mark G Coulthard, Trevor Duke, Andrew Davidson, Tavey Dorofaeff

https://doi.org/10.1002/14651858.CD009457.pub2

2011 Dec 07

Isotonic versus hypotonic solutions for maintenance intravenous fluid administration in children

Protocol

Sarah McNab, Trevor Duke, Karen Choong, Tavey Dorofaeff, Andrew Davidson, Mark Coulthard, Kristen Neville, Robert S. Ware

https://doi.org/10.1002/14651858.CD009457

Differences between protocol and review

A secondary outcome planned in our protocol was mean change in serum sodium. We removed this due to doubts about the statistical significance of this outcome, with concerns about false positive results when comparisons are made within randomised groups (Bland 2011). In addition, the clinical significance of change in sodium is complex and related to the initial sodium for an individual patient. These data were not available.

We included two sensitivity analyses that were not described a priori: these are described in the main text. We did not conduct a planned sensitivity analysis on allocation concealment as only one, small study did not conceal allocation. All subgroup analyses were pre‐specified in the protocol.

The protocol for this review initially stated that we would look to analyse continuous outcomes according to two time blocks: < 12 hours and ≥ 12 hours. Practically, when examining the available data in the included studies, this was difficult as, within individual studies, there were multiple outcomes within the one time block. We elected to change the time blocks to 6 to 12 hours and > 12 to 24 hours. No study had more than one outcome reported within these time blocks. While some studies also reported outcomes in later time blocks (e.g. T48 and T72), most had substantial drop‐outs by this time frame with few meaningful data.

In the protocol, solutions with > or = 125 mmol/L of sodium were considered isotonic or near isotonic. In the review, we added an upper limit of 160 mmol/L. For the subgroup analysis of moderately hypotonic fluid, the protocol defined moderately hypotonic fluid as containing sodium of >/= 70 mmol/L and </= 100 mmol/L. We changed the latter to < 125 mmol/L in the review; this did not affect the outcome as no study used fluid containing between 100 mmol/L and 125 mmol/L of sodium. We changed a restricted fluid rate from </= 60% maintenance in the protocol to </= 70% of standard maintenance in the review.

The protocol stipulated that the rate at which fluid was administered would not be used to include or exclude studies. We removed this from the final review for clarity. We did not use a predefined fluid rate to exclude studies; however, information on fluid rates assisted in determining whether the fluid was being administered to maintain hydration, or for another purpose (e.g. for resuscitation or to replace a pre‐existing deficit).

Keywords

MeSH

PICO

Population
Intervention
Comparison
Outcome

El uso y la enseñanza del modelo PICO están muy extendidos en el ámbito de la atención sanitaria basada en la evidencia para formular preguntas y estrategias de búsqueda y para caracterizar estudios o metanálisis clínicos. PICO son las siglas en inglés de cuatro posibles componentes de una pregunta de investigación: paciente, población o problema; intervención; comparación; desenlace (outcome).

Para saber más sobre el uso del modelo PICO, puede consultar el Manual Cochrane.

Study flow diagram.
Figuras y tablas -
Figure 1

Study flow diagram.

Comparison 1 Isotonic versus hypotonic, Outcome 1 Hyponatraemia.
Figuras y tablas -
Analysis 1.1

Comparison 1 Isotonic versus hypotonic, Outcome 1 Hyponatraemia.

Comparison 1 Isotonic versus hypotonic, Outcome 2 Hypernatraemia.
Figuras y tablas -
Analysis 1.2

Comparison 1 Isotonic versus hypotonic, Outcome 2 Hypernatraemia.

Comparison 1 Isotonic versus hypotonic, Outcome 3 Mean serum sodium T6‐T12.
Figuras y tablas -
Analysis 1.3

Comparison 1 Isotonic versus hypotonic, Outcome 3 Mean serum sodium T6‐T12.

Comparison 1 Isotonic versus hypotonic, Outcome 4 Mean serum sodium at T > T12 to T24.
Figuras y tablas -
Analysis 1.4

Comparison 1 Isotonic versus hypotonic, Outcome 4 Mean serum sodium at T > T12 to T24.

Comparison 1 Isotonic versus hypotonic, Outcome 5 Death.
Figuras y tablas -
Analysis 1.5

Comparison 1 Isotonic versus hypotonic, Outcome 5 Death.

Comparison 1 Isotonic versus hypotonic, Outcome 6 Seizures.
Figuras y tablas -
Analysis 1.6

Comparison 1 Isotonic versus hypotonic, Outcome 6 Seizures.

Comparison 1 Isotonic versus hypotonic, Outcome 7 Cerebral oedema.
Figuras y tablas -
Analysis 1.7

Comparison 1 Isotonic versus hypotonic, Outcome 7 Cerebral oedema.

Comparison 1 Isotonic versus hypotonic, Outcome 8 Overhydration.
Figuras y tablas -
Analysis 1.8

Comparison 1 Isotonic versus hypotonic, Outcome 8 Overhydration.

Comparison 1 Isotonic versus hypotonic, Outcome 9 Urine osmolarity at T24.
Figuras y tablas -
Analysis 1.9

Comparison 1 Isotonic versus hypotonic, Outcome 9 Urine osmolarity at T24.

Comparison 1 Isotonic versus hypotonic, Outcome 10 Urinary sodium concentration at T24.
Figuras y tablas -
Analysis 1.10

Comparison 1 Isotonic versus hypotonic, Outcome 10 Urinary sodium concentration at T24.

Comparison 1 Isotonic versus hypotonic, Outcome 11 Hyponatraemia (by concentration of hypotonic fluid).
Figuras y tablas -
Analysis 1.11

Comparison 1 Isotonic versus hypotonic, Outcome 11 Hyponatraemia (by concentration of hypotonic fluid).

Comparison 1 Isotonic versus hypotonic, Outcome 12 Hyponatraemia (surgical/medical).
Figuras y tablas -
Analysis 1.12

Comparison 1 Isotonic versus hypotonic, Outcome 12 Hyponatraemia (surgical/medical).

Comparison 1 Isotonic versus hypotonic, Outcome 13 Hyponatraemia (by fluid rate).
Figuras y tablas -
Analysis 1.13

Comparison 1 Isotonic versus hypotonic, Outcome 13 Hyponatraemia (by fluid rate).

Comparison 1 Isotonic versus hypotonic, Outcome 14 Hyponatraemia (by age).
Figuras y tablas -
Analysis 1.14

Comparison 1 Isotonic versus hypotonic, Outcome 14 Hyponatraemia (by age).

Comparison 1 Isotonic versus hypotonic, Outcome 15 Hyponatraemia (by severity of illness).
Figuras y tablas -
Analysis 1.15

Comparison 1 Isotonic versus hypotonic, Outcome 15 Hyponatraemia (by severity of illness).

Comparison 1 Isotonic versus hypotonic, Outcome 16 Sensitivity analysis ‐ balanced fluid rates.
Figuras y tablas -
Analysis 1.16

Comparison 1 Isotonic versus hypotonic, Outcome 16 Sensitivity analysis ‐ balanced fluid rates.

Comparison 1 Isotonic versus hypotonic, Outcome 17 Sensitivity analysis ‐ normonatraemic at baseline.
Figuras y tablas -
Analysis 1.17

Comparison 1 Isotonic versus hypotonic, Outcome 17 Sensitivity analysis ‐ normonatraemic at baseline.

Isotonic intravenous fluid compared with hypotonic intravenous fluid to maintain hydration

Patient or population: children requiring intravenous fluid to maintain hydration

Settings: inpatient hospital setting

Intervention: isotonic intravenous fluid

Comparison: hypotonic intravenous fluid

Outcomes

Illustrative comparative risks* (95% CI)

Relative effect
(95% CI)

No of participants
(studies)

Quality of the evidence
(GRADE)

Comments

Assumed risk

Corresponding risk

Hypotonic intravenous fluid

Isotonic intravenous fluid

Hyponatraemia (serum sodium < 135 mmol/L)

Study population

RR 0.48 (0.38 to 0.60)

970
(10)

⊕⊕⊕⊕
high

338 per 1000

169 per 1000
(134 to 211)

Surgical patients

RR 0.48 (0.36 to 0.64)

529

(7)

⊕⊕⊕⊕
high

379 per 1000

185 per 1000
(139 to 247)

Medical patients

RR 0.29 (0.16 to 0.55)

279

(4)

⊕⊕⊕⊝
moderate

276 per 1000

83 per 1000
(46 to 157)

Intensive care patients

RR 0.48 (0.37 to 0.64)

443

(5)

⊕⊕⊕⊕
high

446 per 1000

217 per 1000
(167 to 289)

Non‐intensive care patients

RR 0.45 (0.29 to 0.68)

359

(5)

⊕⊕⊕⊝
moderate

312 per 1000

135 per 1000
(87 to 204)

Hypernatraemia

Study population

RR 1.24 (0.65 to 2.38)

937
(9)

⊕⊕⊝⊝
low

Quality of evidence downgraded due to imprecision ‐ small number of events, wide confidence interval

34 per 1000

37 per 1000
(19 to 71)

Death

Study population

5.59 (0.23 to 135.17)

996
(10)

⊕⊕⊝⊝
low

Quality of evidence downgraded due to imprecision ‐ small number of events, wide confidence interval

Study design reduced the likelihood of this outcome

0 per 1000

2 per 1000
(0 to 48)

Seizures

Study population

RR 0.62 (0.03 to 15.02)

996
(10)

⊕⊕⊝⊝
low

Quality of evidence downgraded due to imprecision ‐ small number of events, wide confidence interval

Study design reduced the likelihood of this outcome

2 per 1000

0 per 1000

Cerebral oedema

Study population

RR incalculable

9 studies

⊕⊝⊝⊝
very low

Quality of evidence downgraded due to imprecision ‐ no events, incalculable confidence interval

Study design reduced the likelihood of this outcome

0 per 1000

0 per 1000

Overhydration

Study population

RR 1.14 (0.46 to 2.87)

615
(5)

⊕⊕⊝⊝
low

Quality of evidence downgraded due to imprecision ‐ small number of events, wide confidence interval

Heterogeneity in the criteria for assessing this outcome

26 per 1000

30 per 1000
(12 to 76)

*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.

Figuras y tablas -
Table 1. Common commercially available intravenous fluids

 

Na+

(mmol/L)

Cl‐

(mmol/L)

K+

(mmol/L)

Mg++

(mmol/L)

Calcium

(mmol/L)

Lactate

(mmol/L)

Acetate

(mmol/L)

Gluconate

(mmol/L)

Glucose

(gram/L)

Physiologically isotonic/near isotonic

0.9% sodium chloride

154

154

0.9% sodium chloride with 2.5/5% dextrose

154

154

25 / 50

Hartmann's solution (similar in ionic composition to Ringer's lactate)

131

111

5

2

29

Plasmalyte 148 solution

140

98

5

1.5

27

23

Plasmalyte 148 solution with 5% dextrose

140

98

5

1.5

27

23

50

Physiologically moderately hypotonic

0.45% sodium chloride (N/2) with 5% dextrose  

77

77

50

Physiologically very hypotonic

0.3% sodium chloride (N/3) with 3.3% dextrose

51

51

33

0.18% sodium chloride (N/5) with 4% dextrose

30

30

40

Note: Minor variations in composition occur at the point of manufacture.

Figuras y tablas -
Table 1. Common commercially available intravenous fluids
Table 2. Included studies

Study

Number of participants

Population

Study arms

Primary outcome

Brazel 1996

12

Patients undergoing primary corrective surgery for idiopathic scoliosis

Isotonic (Hartmann's)

Hypotonic (either 0.3% saline + 3% dextrose or 0.18% saline + 4% dextrose)

Rate: 1.5 ml/kg/hr

Development of SIADH

Montañana 2008

122

PICU patients

Isotonic fluid (sodium 140 mEq/L)

Hypotonic fluid (sodium between 20 and 100 mEq/L corresponding to 2 to 4 mEq/kg/24 hr)

Exact composition of fluids not stated

Rate: standard maintenance

Hyponatraemia < 135 mEq/L

Yung 2009

50

PICU patients

0.9% saline at standard maintenance rate

0.9% saline at 2/3 restricted rate

0.18% saline + 4% dextrose at standard maintenance rate

0.18% saline + 4% dextrose at 2/3 restricted rate

Change in plasma sodium from admission to 12 to 24 hrs later

Kannan 2010

167

Broad paediatric population (university hospital in India)

0.9% saline + 5% dextrose at standard maintenance rate

0.18% saline + 5% dextrose at standard maintenance rate

0.18% saline + 5% dextrose at 2/3 restricted rate

Hyponatraemia < 130mEq/L

Neville 2010

124

Elective or emergency surgery

0.9% saline + 2.5% dextrose at standard maintenance rate

0.9% saline + 5% dextrose at 50% restricted rate

0.45% saline + 2.5% dextrose at standard maintenance rate

0.45% saline + 5% dextrose at 50% restricted rate

Change in plasma sodium from induction of anaesthesia to T8

Rey 2011

125

PICU patients

Isotonic (sodium 136 mmol/L)

Hypotonic (sodium 30 to 50 mmol/L)

Exact composition not stated

Rate: standard maintenance

Change in plasma sodium from admission to 12 and 24 hrs later

Choong 2011

258

Surgical patients

0.9% saline + 5% dextrose

0.45% saline + 5% dextrose

Rate: Physician's discretion

Hyponatraemia < 135 mmol/L

Saba 2011

37

Medical patients admitted via ED

Elective surgical patients

0.9% saline + 5% dextrose

0.45% saline + 5% dextrose

Rate: physician's discretion

Rate of change of sodium

Coulthard 2012

82

Patients undergoing spinal instrumentation, craniotomy for brain tumour resection or cranial vault remodelling

Hartmann's + 5% dextrose at full maintenance rate

0.45% saline + 5% dextrose at 2/3 restricted rate

Mean plasma sodium 16 to 18 hrs postoperatively

Cuello 2012

(abstract only)

72

Participants with either of 2 conditions:

a) gastroenteritis with moderate dehydration and unable to tolerate fluids

b) children requiring non‐urgent surgery and requiring maintenance intravenous hydration during their admission

0.9% saline + 5% dextrose +/‐ 20 mmol/L KCl

0.2% saline + 5% dextrose +/‐ 20 mmol/L KCl

Rate: standard maintenance

Mean plasma sodium at 4 (T4) and 8 (T8) hours, and the percentage of patients who developed hyponatraemia (> 125 mEq/L and < 135 mEq/L)

ED: emergency department
hr: hour

KCl: potassium choride
PICU: paediatric intensive care unit
SIADH: syndrome of inappropriate antidiuretic hormone secretion

Figuras y tablas -
Table 2. Included studies
Table 3. Timing of therapy and outcome measures

First author

Duration of fluid therapy

Timing of outcome measurements

Brazel

Max 72 hrs

End of procedure, T6, T24, T48, T72

 

Montañana

Max 24 hrs

T6, T24 (only T6 primary outcome data included in analysis)

Yung

12 to 24 hrs

T12 to 24

Kannan

Max 72 hrs

T12, T24, T36, T48, T60, T72

 

Neville

Max 24 hrs

At intubation, T8, T24

Rey

Max 24 hrs

T12, T24

Choong

Max 48 hrs

T12, T24, T36, T48

Saba

8 to 12 hrs

T12

Coulthard

16 to 18 hrs

T16 to 18

Cuello

8 hrs

T4, T8

hr: hour

Figuras y tablas -
Table 3. Timing of therapy and outcome measures
Table 4. Inclusion and exclusion criteria

Primary author

Inclusion criteria

Exclusion criteria

Brazel

Adolescent patients undergoing primary corrective surgery for adolescent idiopathic scoliosis

 

Montañana

PICU patients requiring maintenance intravenous fluid

 

Chronic or acute kidney failure

Patients at risk of cerebral oedema (diabetic ketoacidosis or craneoencephalic trauma)

Patients with plasma sodium level at admission < 130 mEq/L or > 150 mEq/L, and/or dehydration > 5% of the patient's body weight

 

Yung

Patients admitted to PICU who would normally require IV fluids at standard maintenance rates for 12 hrs, with normal sodium levels and not hypoglycaemic

 

Neonates, diabetes, renal failure, shock

Cardiac and neurosurgical patients were eligible for the restricted rate arm only

Kannan

Patients aged between 3 months and 12 years requiring IV maintenance fluid administration for at least 24 hrs

 

Na < 130mEq/L, Na > 150mEq/L, blood glucose > 180 mg/dL, dehydration, shock, severe malnutrition, cirrhosis of liver, congestive heart failure, acute or chronic renal failure and nephrotic syndrome

Patients receiving drugs that may alter plasma sodium levels

Patients requiring fluid boluses for volume depletion and/or shock

Neville

Patients undergoing elective or emergency surgery, expected to take nothing by mouth after surgery for at least 8 hrs. Weight > 8kg

Significant blood loss expected during surgery

Surgery types known to be associated with excess ADH secretion (cranial and thoracic surgery)

Known abnormality of ADH secretion, nephrogenic diabetes insipidus, pituitary or hypothalamic disease, kidney disease, acute or chronic lung disease

Patients receiving drugs known to stimulate ADH secretion

Rey

PICU patients requiring maintenance IV fluids

 

Impairment in body water homeostasis (e.g. congestive heart failure)

Electrolytic alterations requiring a different IV fluid than that in the study

Renal function abnormalities

Patients requiring fluid restriction
Patients receiving enteral or parenteral nutrition 

Choong

Euvolaemic patients within 6 hours after elective surgery if anticipated need for IV maintenance was > 24 hours

 

Uncorrected plasma sodium level abnormalities before the end of surgery

Patients with known abnormalities of ADH secretion

Patients requiring volume resuscitation and/or vasoactive infusions

Recent loop diuretic use

Total parenteral nutrition required with 24 hours following surgery

Patients for whom either a hypotonic or isotonic Isotonic fluid was considered necessary or contraindicated (e.g. because of a risk of cerebral oedema, acute burns or the risk of third space and/or sodium overload in patients with pre‐existing congestive cardiac failure, renal failure, liver failure or cirrhosis) 

Saba

Patients requiring at least 8 hours of IV fluids

 

Baseline Na of < 133 or > 145 mmol/L

Patients with any of renal disease, cardiac dysfunction, pre‐existing hypertension, diuretic use, oedema, known adrenal dysfunction, acute or severe chronic neurological illness 

Coulthard

Patients admitted to PICU following spinal instrumentation for correction of scoliosis, craniotomy for excision of brain tumours and cranial vault remodelling

Lengthening only of spinal instrumentation rods, insertion or revision of ventriculoperitoneal shunts, intracerebral cyst fenestration or previously enrolled 

Cuello

Patients 6 months to 14 years old; with a serum sodium level between 125 mmol/L to 150 mmol/L; previously healthy, admitted to the emergency room or hospitalisation ward with any of 2 conditions: a) gastroenteritis with moderate dehydration and unable to drink fluids; b) children undergoing non‐urgent surgery and requiring maintenance IV hydration during their hospitalisation (i.e. non‐incarcerated hernia, adenotonsillectomies, tympanostomy, fracture reductions of the extremities, etc.) 

Chronic illnesses (e.g. cystic fibrosis, cerebral palsy, etc.); taking antidiuretics; major trauma that required intensive care; hyper or hyponatraemia at admission; severe dehydration

ADH: antidiuretic hormone secretion
hr: hour
IV: intravenous
PICU: paediatric intensive care unit

Figuras y tablas -
Table 4. Inclusion and exclusion criteria
Comparison 1. Isotonic versus hypotonic

Outcome or subgroup title

No. of studies

No. of participants

Statistical method

Effect size

1 Hyponatraemia Show forest plot

10

970

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.48 [0.38, 0.60]

2 Hypernatraemia Show forest plot

9

937

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

1.24 [0.65, 2.38]

3 Mean serum sodium T6‐T12 Show forest plot

7

851

Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)

1.99 [1.55, 2.42]

4 Mean serum sodium at T > T12 to T24 Show forest plot

6

579

Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)

1.33 [0.81, 1.85]

5 Death Show forest plot

10

996

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

5.59 [0.23, 135.17]

6 Seizures Show forest plot

10

996

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.62 [0.03, 15.02]

7 Cerebral oedema Show forest plot

9

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

Subtotals only

8 Overhydration Show forest plot

5

615

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

1.14 [0.46, 2.87]

9 Urine osmolarity at T24 Show forest plot

3

278

Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)

12.68 [‐34.20, 59.56]

10 Urinary sodium concentration at T24 Show forest plot

4

516

Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)

14.72 [9.02, 20.42]

11 Hyponatraemia (by concentration of hypotonic fluid) Show forest plot

9

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

Subtotals only

11.1 Isotonic versus moderately hypotonic fluid

4

458

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.48 [0.34, 0.67]

11.2 Isotonic versus very hypotonic fluid

5

409

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.40 [0.27, 0.58]

12 Hyponatraemia (surgical/medical) Show forest plot

8

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

Subtotals only

12.1 Surgical patients

7

529

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.48 [0.36, 0.64]

12.2 Medical patients

4

279

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.29 [0.16, 0.55]

13 Hyponatraemia (by fluid rate) Show forest plot

5

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

Subtotals only

13.1 Full maintenance

5

459

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.45 [0.33, 0.61]

13.2 Restricted rate

1

62

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.45 [0.18, 1.16]

14 Hyponatraemia (by age) Show forest plot

8

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

Subtotals only

14.1 Age < 1 year

7

100

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.33 [0.12, 0.88]

14.2 Age 1 to 5 years

7

243

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.33 [0.19, 0.57]

14.3 Age > 5 years

8

465

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.51 [0.38, 0.69]

15 Hyponatraemia (by severity of illness) Show forest plot

9

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

Subtotals only

15.1 Intensive care patients

5

443

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.48 [0.37, 0.64]

15.2 Non‐intensive care patients

5

359

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.45 [0.29, 0.68]

16 Sensitivity analysis ‐ balanced fluid rates Show forest plot

8

735

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.45 [0.35, 0.58]

17 Sensitivity analysis ‐ normonatraemic at baseline Show forest plot

4

326

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.49 [0.34, 0.71]

Figuras y tablas -
Comparison 1. Isotonic versus hypotonic