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

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 \u3c 0.0001) in the trauma group. Median CDS was 3 (range 0-8) within the dehydration group and 0 in the comparison group (p \u3c 0.0001). The following parameters were statistically significant (p \u3c 0.05) between the comparison group and the dehydrated group: difference in heart rate, diastolic blood pressure, urine sodium/potassium ratio, urine sodium, fractional sodium excretion, serum bicarbonate, and creatinine measurements. The best markers for dehydration were urine Na and serum bicarbonate (ROC AUC = 0.798 and 0.821, respectively). CDS was most closely correlated with serum bicarbonate (Pearson r = -0.3696, p = 0.002).Conclusion: Although serum bicarbonate is not the gold standard for dehydration, this study provides further evidence for the usefulness of the CDS as a dehydration marker in children.Trial registration: Registered at ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT00462527) on April 18, 2007. © 2014 Tam et al.; licensee BioMed Central Ltd

Steroids and bronchodilators for acute bronchiolitis in the first two years of life: systematic review and meta-analysis

Objective To evaluate and compare the efficacy and safety of bronchodilators and steroids, alone or combined, for the acute management of bronchiolitis in children aged less than 2 years

Multi-dose Oral Ondansetron for Pediatric Gastroenteritis: study Protocol for the multi-DOSE oral ondansetron for pediatric Acute GastroEnteritis (DOSE-AGE) pragmatic randomized controlled trial

BACKGROUND: There are limited treatment options that clinicians can provide to children presenting to emergency departments with vomiting secondary to acute gastroenteritis. Based on evidence of effectiveness and safety, clinicians now routinely administer ondansetron in the emergency department to promote oral rehydration therapy success. However, clinicians are also increasingly providing multiple doses of ondansetron for home use, creating unquantified cost and health system resource use implications without any evidence to support this expanding practice. METHODS/DESIGN: DOSE-AGE is a randomized, placebo-controlled, double-blinded, six-center, pragmatic clinical trial being conducted in six Canadian pediatric emergency departments (EDs). In September 2019 the study began recruiting children aged 6 months to 18 years with a minimum of three episodes of vomiting in the 24 h preceding enrollment,(1:1 allocation via an internet-based, third-party, randomization service) to receive a 48-h supply (i.e., six doses) of ondansetron oral solution or placebo, administered on an as-needed basis. All participants, caregivers and outcome assessors will be blinded to group assignment. Outcome data will be collected by surveys administered to caregivers 24, 48 and 168 h following enrollment. The primary outcome is the development of moderate-to-severe gastroenteritis in the 7 days following the ED visit as measured by a validated clinical score (the Modified Vesikari Scale). Secondary outcomes include duration and frequency of vomiting and diarrhea, proportions of children experiencing unscheduled health care visits and intravenous rehydration, caregiver satisfaction with treatment and safety. A preplanned economic evaluation will be conducted alongside the trial. DISCUSSION: Definitive data are lacking to guide the clinical use of post-ED visit multidose ondansetron in children with acute gastroenteritis. Usage is increasing, despite the absence of supportive evidence. The incumbent additional costs associated with use, and potential side effects such as diarrhea and repeat visits, create an urgent need to evaluate the effect and safety of multiple doses of ondansetron in children focusing on post-emergency department visit and patient-centered outcomes. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT03851835. Registered on 22 February 2019

A pragmatic randomized controlled trial of multi-dose oral ondansetron for pediatric gastroenteritis (the DOSE-AGE study): statistical analysis plan.

BACKGROUND: Acute gastroenteritis is a leading cause of emergency department visits and hospitalizations among children in North America. Oral-rehydration therapy is recommended for children with mild-to-moderate dehydration, but children who present with vomiting are frequently offered intravenous rehydration in the emergency department (ED). Recent studies have demonstrated that the anti-emetic ondansetron can reduce vomiting, intravenous rehydration, and hospitalization when administered in the ED to children with dehydration. However, there is little evidence of additional benefit from prescribing ondansetron beyond the initial ED dose. Moreover, repeat dosing may increase the frequency of diarrhea. Despite the lack of evidence and potential adverse side effects, many physicians across North America provide multiple doses of ondansetron to be taken following ED disposition. Thus, the Multi-Dose Oral Ondansetron for Pediatric Gastroenteritis (DOSE-AGE) trial will evaluate the effectiveness of prescribing multiple doses of ondansetron to treat acute gastroenteritis-associated vomiting. This article specifies the statistical analysis plan (SAP) for the DOSE-AGE trial and was submitted before the outcomes of the study were available for analysis. METHODS/DESIGN: The DOSE-AGE study is a phase III, 6-center, placebo-controlled, double-blind, parallel design randomized controlled trial designed to determine whether participants who are prescribed multiple doses of oral ondansetron to administer, as needed, following their ED visit have a lower incidence of experiencing moderate-to-severe gastroenteritis, as measured by the Modified Vesikari Scale score, compared with a placebo. To assess safety, the DOSE-AGE trial will investigate the frequency and maximum number of diarrheal episodes following ED disposition, and the occurrence of palpitations, pre-syncope/syncope, chest pain, arrhythmias, and serious adverse events. For the secondary outcomes, the DOSE-AGE trial will investigate the individual elements of the Modified Vesikari Scale score and caregiver satisfaction with the therapy. DISCUSSION: The DOSE-AGE trial will provide evidence on the effectiveness of multiple doses of oral ondansetron, taken as needed, following an initial ED dose in children with acute gastroenteritis-associated vomiting. The data from the DOSE-AGE trial will be analyzed using this SAP. This will reduce the risk of producing data-driven results and bias in our reported outcomes. The DOSE-AGE study was registered on ClinicalTrials.gov on February 22, 2019. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov NCT03851835 . Registered on 22 February 2019

Innovative approaches to investigator-initiated, multicentre paediatric clinical trials in Canada

Data from clinical trials are needed to guide the safe and effective use of medicines in children. Clinical trials are challenging to design and implement in all populations, and children present additional considerations. Several regions including the UK, USA and Europe have established clinical trial infrastructure to capitalise on expertise and promote clinical trials enrolling children. Our objective is to describe the partnerships and operational considerations for the development of paediatric clinical trials infrastructure in Canada. We describe the design and conduct of four emergency room paediatric trials, with four separate sponsors, across four provinces in parallel. Operations discussed include multisite contract development, centralised risk-based data monitoring, ethical review and patient engagement. We conclude with lessons learnt, additional challenges and potential solutions to facilitate drug development for children in Canada

Dating of Bruises in Children: An Assessment of Physician Accuracy

Dating of Bruises in Methods. Children who presented to the emergency department of a children's hospital with accidental bruises of known age and origin had demographic data and information about their injury recorded. Historyblinded emergency pediatricians, other physicians, and trainees (fellows, residents, and medical students) independently examined the bruised area and recorded injury characteristics and age estimation and ranked characteristics that influenced their estimation. Results. Fifty children with accidental bruises were enrolled. Emergency pediatricians' accuracy of age estimation within 24 hours of actual age was 47.6%. Individual emergency pediatrician's accuracy ranged from 0% to 100%, and the interobserver reliability was poor ( ‫؍‬ ؊0.03). Accuracy within 24 hours of actual age was 29.4% for other physicians and 36.8% for trainees, which was similar to the emergency pediatricians. Observers reported using color primarily to estimate age, followed by tenderness and then swelling; however, none of these factors was significantly correlated with accuracy. Conclusions. Physician estimates of bruise age are highly inaccurate within 24 hours of the actual age of the injury. Large individual variability and poor interrater reliability also suggest that caution must be used when interpreting these estimates. This study supports earlier studies, urging extreme caution in estimating bruise age, even when such estimates are based on direct examination of the injured area. Pediatrics 2003;112:804 -807; children, bruising, abuse, emergency

Consolidated standards of reporting trials (CONSORT) and the completeness of reporting of randomised controlled trials (RCTs) published inmedical journals (Review)

Background: An overwhelming body of evidence stating that the completeness of reporting of randomised controlled trials (RCTs) is not optimal has accrued over time. In the mid-1990s, in response to these concerns, an international group of clinical trialists, statisticians, epidemiologists, and biomedical journal editors developed the CONsolidated Standards Of Reporting Trials (CONSORT) Statement. The CONSORT Statement, most recently updated in March 2010, is an evidence-based minimum set of recommendations including a checklist and flow diagram for reporting RCTs and is intended to facilitate the complete and transparent reporting of trials and aid their critical appraisal and interpretation. In 2006, a systematic review of eight studies evaluating the “effectiveness of CONSORT in improving reporting quality in journals” was published. Objectives: To update the earlier systematic review assessing whether journal endorsement of the 1996 and 2001 CONSORT checklists influences the completeness of reporting of RCTs published in medical journals. Search methods: We conducted electronic searches, known item searching, and reference list scans to identify reports of evaluations assessing the completeness of reporting of RCTs. The electronic search strategy was developed inMEDLINE and tailored to EMBASE.We searched the Cochrane Methodology Register and the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews using the Wiley interface. We searched the Science Citation Index, Social Science Citation Index, and Arts and Humanities Citation Index through the ISI Web of Knowledge interface. We conducted all searches to identify reports published between January 2005 and March 2010, inclusive. Selection criteria: In addition to studies identified in the original systematic review on this topic, comparative studies evaluating the completeness of reporting of RCTs in any of the following comparison groups were eligible for inclusion in this review: 1) Completeness of reporting of RCTs published in journals that have and have not endorsed the CONSORT Statement; 2) Completeness of reporting of RCTs published in CONSORT-endorsing journals before and after endorsement; or 3) Completeness of reporting of RCTs before and after the publication of the CONSORT Statement (1996 or 2001). We used a broad definition of CONSORT endorsement that includes any of the following: (a) requirement or recommendation in journal’s ’Instructions to Authors’ to follow CONSORT guidelines; (b) journal editorial statement endorsing the CONSORT Statement; or (c) editorial requirement for authors to submit a CONSORT checklist and/or flow diagram with their manuscript. We contacted authors of evaluations reporting data that could be included in any comparison group(s), but not presented as such in the published report and asked them to provide additional data in order to determine eligibility of their evaluation. Evaluations were not excluded due to language of publication or validity assessment. Data collection and analysis: We completed screening and data extraction using standardised electronic forms, where conflicts, reasons for exclusion, and level of agreement were all automatically and centrally managed in web-based management software, DistillerSR®. One of two authors extracted general characteristics of included evaluations and all data were verified by a second author. Data describing completeness of reporting were extracted by one author using a pre-specified form; a 10%random sample of evaluations was verified by a second author. Any discrepancies were discussed by both authors; we made no modifications to the extracted data. Validity assessments of included evaluations were conducted by one author and independently verified by one of three authors. We resolved all conflicts by consensus. For each comparison we collected data on 27 outcomes: 22 items of the CONSORT 2001 checklist, plus four items relating to the reporting of blinding, and one item of aggregate CONSORT scores. Where reported, we extracted and qualitatively synthesised data on the methodological quality of RCTs, by scale or score. Main results: Fifty-three publications reporting 50 evaluations were included. The total number of RCTs assessed within evaluations was 16,604 (median per evaluation 123 (interquartile range (IQR) 77 to 226) published in a median of six (IQR 3 to 26) journals. Characteristics of the included RCT populations were variable, resulting in heterogeneity between included evaluations. Validity assessments of included studies resulted in largely unclear judgements. The included evaluations are not RCTs and less than 8% (4/53) of the evaluations reported adjusting for potential confounding factors. Twenty-five of 27 outcomes assessing completeness of reporting in RCTs appeared to favour CONSORT-endorsing journals over non-endorsers, of which five were statistically significant. ’Allocation concealment’ resulted in the largest effect, with risk ratio (RR) 1.81 (99% confidence interval (CI) 1.25 to 2.61), suggesting that 81% more RCTs published in CONSORT-endorsing journals adequately describe allocation concealment compared to those published in non-endorsing journals. Allocation concealment was reported adequately in 45% (393/876) of RCTs in CONSORT-endorsing journals and in 22% (329/1520) of RCTs in non-endorsing journals. Other outcomes with results that were significant include: scientific rationale and background in the ’Introduction’ (RR 1.07, 99% CI 1.01 to 1.14); ’sample size’ (RR 1.61, 99% CI 1.13 to 2.29); method used for ’sequence generation’ (RR 1.59, 99% CI 1.38 to 1.84); and an aggregate score over reported CONSORT items, ’total sum score’ (standardised mean difference (SMD) 0.68 (99% CI 0.38 to 0.98)). Authors’ conclusions: Evidence has accumulated to suggest that the reporting of RCTs remains sub-optimal. This review updates a previous systematic review of eight evaluations. The findings of this review are similar to those from the original review and demonstrate that, despite the general inadequacies of reporting of RCTs, journal endorsement of the CONSORT Statement may beneficially influence the completeness of reporting of trials published in medical journals. Future prospective studies are needed to explore the influenc

Predicting Hemolytic Uremic Syndrome and Renal Replacement Therapy in Shiga Toxin-producing Escherichia coli-infected Children.

BACKGROUND: Shiga toxin-producing Escherichia coli (STEC) infections are leading causes of pediatric acute renal failure. Identifying hemolytic uremic syndrome (HUS) risk factors is needed to guide care. METHODS: We conducted a multicenter, historical cohort study to identify features associated with development of HUS (primary outcome) and need for renal replacement therapy (RRT) (secondary outcome) in STEC-infected children without HUS at initial presentation. Children agedeligible. RESULTS: Of 927 STEC-infected children, 41 (4.4%) had HUS at presentation; of the remaining 886, 126 (14.2%) developed HUS. Predictors (all shown as odds ratio [OR] with 95% confidence interval [CI]) of HUS included younger age (0.77 [.69-.85] per year), leukocyte count ≥13.0 × 103/μL (2.54 [1.42-4.54]), higher hematocrit (1.83 [1.21-2.77] per 5% increase) and serum creatinine (10.82 [1.49-78.69] per 1 mg/dL increase), platelet count \u3c250 \u3e× 103/μL (1.92 [1.02-3.60]), lower serum sodium (1.12 [1.02-1.23 per 1 mmol/L decrease), and intravenous fluid administration initiated ≥4 days following diarrhea onset (2.50 [1.14-5.46]). A longer interval from diarrhea onset to index visit was associated with reduced HUS risk (OR, 0.70 [95% CI, .54-.90]). RRT predictors (all shown as OR [95% CI]) included female sex (2.27 [1.14-4.50]), younger age (0.83 [.74-.92] per year), lower serum sodium (1.15 [1.04-1.27] per mmol/L decrease), higher leukocyte count ≥13.0 × 103/μL (2.35 [1.17-4.72]) and creatinine (7.75 [1.20-50.16] per 1 mg/dL increase) concentrations, and initial intravenous fluid administration ≥4 days following diarrhea onset (2.71 [1.18-6.21]). CONCLUSIONS: The complex nature of STEC infection renders predicting its course a challenge. Risk factors we identified highlight the importance of avoiding dehydration and performing close clinical and laboratory monitoring

Quality of Reporting and Study Design of CKD Cohort Studies Assessing Mortality in the Elderly Before and After STROBE:A Systematic Review

BACKGROUND:The STrengthening the Reporting of OBservational studies in Epidemiology (STROBE) statement was published in October 2007 to improve quality of reporting of observational studies. The aim of this review was to assess the impact of the STROBE statement on observational study reporting and study design quality in the nephrology literature. STUDY DESIGN:Systematic literature review. SETTING & POPULATION:European and North American, Pre-dialysis Chronic Kidney Disease (CKD) cohort studies. SELECTION CRITERIA FOR STUDIES:Studies assessing the association between CKD and mortality in the elderly (>65 years) published from 1st January 2002 to 31st December 2013 were included, following systematic searching of MEDLINE & EMBASE. PREDICTOR:Time period before and after the publication of the STROBE statement. OUTCOME:Quality of study reporting using the STROBE statement and quality of study design using the Newcastle Ottawa Scale (NOS), Scottish Intercollegiate Guidelines Network (SIGN) and Critical Appraisal Skills Programme (CASP) tools. RESULTS:37 papers (11 Pre & 26 Post STROBE) were identified from 3621 potential articles. Only four of the 22 STROBE items and their sub-criteria (objectives reporting, choice of quantitative groups and description of and carrying out sensitivity analysis) showed improvements, with the majority of items showing little change between the period before and after publication of the STROBE statement. Pre- and post-period analysis revealed a Manuscript STROBE score increase (median score 77.8% (Inter-quartile range [IQR], 64.7-82.0) vs 83% (IQR, 78.4-84.9, p = 0.05). There was no change in quality of study design with identical median scores in the two periods for NOS (Manuscript NOS score 88.9), SIGN (Manuscript SIGN score 83.3) and CASP (Manuscript CASP score 91.7) tools. LIMITATIONS:Only 37 Studies from Europe and North America were included from one medical specialty. Assessment of study design largely reliant on good reporting. CONCLUSIONS:This study highlights continuing deficiencies in the reporting of STROBE items and their sub-criteria in cohort studies in nephrology. There was weak evidence of improvement in the overall reporting quality, with no improvement in methodological quality of CKD cohort studies between the period before and after publication of the STROBE statement