A strength of this meta-analysis is that it utilized randomized controlled trials. However, it is not stated whether they were double-blinded trials, which could potentially lead to evaluator bias. In addition, this analysis does not address the osmolality differences of the ORS solutions used. It is stated that different sodium concentrations appeared to be equally safe, but it is possible that higher or lower osmotic solutions could make a difference in the effectiveness of rehydration. The authors do not mention the methods of administering the ORS solutions. such as timing, volume, and duration of therapy (e.g., When was ORT initiated? How much ORT was given at what intervals? When was therapy stopped?)
Gavin, Merrick, and Davidson meta-analysis (1996) makes a unique contribution to the literature because it compares and discusses the length of hospital stays from inpatient rehydration therapy to the rates of hospitalization from outpatient rehydration treatment. Although there was not a statistically significant difference in ORT failure rates between inpatient and outpatient treatment, the size of the difference in failure rates is clinically meaningful (4.6% inpatient failure rate vs. 1.5% outpatient failure rate). This meta-analysis also addresses the issue of safety as indicated by the low occurrence of hypernatremia and hyponatremia induced by ORT.
- 1 decade agoFavorite Answer
這階分析力量是, 它運用了被隨機化的受控試驗。但是, 它不陳述是否他們是雙重被矇蔽的試驗, 能潛在地導致評估者偏心。另外, 這分析不演講ORS 解答的osmolality 區別被使用。這被闡明, 不同的鈉含量看來是相等地安全的, 但它是可能的更高或更低的滲透的解答能產生在再水化的有效率上的變化。作者不提及執行ORS 解答方法譬如時間、療法的容量, 和期間(即, 何時ORT 被創始了? 多少ORT 被給了在什麼間隔時間? 當是療法被停止?) Gavin 、Merrick, 和Davidson 階分析(1996) 做對文學的獨特的貢獻因為它比較和談論醫院逗留的長度從住院病人再水化療法對住院治療的率從門診病人再水化治療。雖然沒有在ORT 錯誤率上的一個統計地重大區別在住院病人和門診病人治療之間, 區別的大小在錯誤率上的臨床是意味深長的(4.6% 住院病人錯誤率對。1.5% 門診病人錯誤率) 。這階分析依照由hypernatremia 和hyponatremia 低發生表明並且論及安全的問題由ORT