Article Text

PDF
Diagnostic accuracy of three clinical dehydration scales: a systematic review
  1. Anna Falszewska,
  2. Hania Szajewska,
  3. Piotr Dziechciarz
  1. Department of Paediatrics, The Medical University of Warsaw, Warsaw, Poland
  1. Correspondence to Dr Piotr Dziechciarz, The Medical University of Warsaw, Department of Paediatrics, 02-091 Warsaw, Zwirki i Wigury 63A, Poland; piotrdz{at}hotmail.com

Abstract

Objective To systematically assess the diagnostic accuracy of the Clinical Dehydration Scale (CDS), the WHO Scale and the Gorelick Scale in identifying dehydration in children with acute gastroenteritis (AGE).

Design Three databases, two registers of clinical trials and the reference lists from identified articles were searched for diagnostic accuracy studies in children with AGE. The index tests were the CDS, WHO Scale and Gorelick Scale, and reference standard was the percentage loss of body weight. The main analysed outcomes were the sensitivity, specificity, positive likelihood ratio (LR) and negative LR.

Results Ten studies were included. In high-income countries, the CDS provided a moderate-to-large increase in the post-test probability of predicting moderate to severe (≥6%) dehydration (positive LR 3.9–11.79), but it was of limited value for ruling it out (negative LR 0.55–0.71). In low-income countries, the CDS showed limited value both for ruling in and ruling out moderate-to-severe dehydration. In both settings, the CDS showed poor diagnostic accuracy for ruling in or out no dehydration (<3%) or some dehydration (3%–6%). The WHO Scale showed no or limited value in assessing dehydration in children with diarrhoea. With one exception, the included studies did not confirm the diagnostic accuracy of the Gorelick Scale.

Conclusion Limited evidence suggests that the CDS can help in ruling in moderate-to-severe dehydration (≥6%) in high-income settings only. The WHO and Gorelick Scales are not helpful for assessing dehydration in children with AGE.

  • general paediatrics
  • paediatric practice

Statistics from Altmetric.com

Footnotes

  • Contributors All authors contributed to the study concept and design. AF and PD were responsible for data collection. All authors analysed and interpreted the data. AF assumed the main responsibility for the writing of the first draft of this manuscript. All authors contributed to (and agreed upon) the final version.

  • Competing interests None declared.

  • Provenance and peer review Not commissioned; externally peer reviewed.

Request permissions

If you wish to reuse any or all of this article please use the link below which will take you to the Copyright Clearance Center’s RightsLink service. You will be able to get a quick price and instant permission to reuse the content in many different ways.