Comparison of three dehydration scales showed that they were of limited or no value for assessing small children with acute diarrhoea.

AIM: We explored the diagnostic accuracy of the clinical dehydration scale (CDS), the World Health Organization (WHO) scale and the Gorelick scale for assessing dehydration in children admitted to a Tanzanian referral hospital. METHODS: This was a prospective, observational study, carried out from April 2015 to January 2017 on children aged one month to five years admitted to the hospital with acute diarrhoea lasting less than five days. Before rehydration therapy, each patient's weight was recorded and the degree of dehydration was assessed based on the three scales. The reference standard was the percentage weight change between admission and discharge. The main outcomes were the sensitivity, specificity and positive and negative likelihood ratios (LRs) of the scales. RESULTS: Data from 124 eligible patients were available. The CDS showed limited value for ruling in cases with some dehydration (LR 1.9, 95% confidence interval 1.1-2.8), but was of no value in assessing no and moderate to severe dehydration. The WHO and Gorelick scales were of no value in evaluating any degree of dehydration. CONCLUSION: The WHO and Gorelick dehydration scales were no use for assessing dehydration in small children, and the CDS was of limited use for predicting cases with some dehydration.

Diagnostic accuracy of clinical dehydration scales in children.

The aim of this study was to evaluate the diagnostic accuracy of the Clinical Dehydration Scale (CDS), the World Health Organization (WHO) scale, and the Gorelick scale for dehydration assessment in children. A prospective, observational study was carried out between October 2014 and December 2016. Eligible participants were children aged 1 month to 5 years with acute diarrhea. After hospital admission, each patient's weight was recorded and the degree of dehydration based on three scales was assessed. The reference standard was the percentage weight change between the discharge and admission weights. The main outcomes were the sensitivity, specificity, positive likelihood ratio (LR), and negative LR. Of 128 children enrolled in the study, complete data were available from 118 patients for analysis. Most of children presented with no or mild dehydration. Only the CDS showed limited value in confirming a diagnosis of dehydration ≥6% (positive LR 3.9, 95% CI 1.1 to 9.1), with no value in ruling it out (negative LR 0.6, 95% CI 0.2 to 0.99). CONCLUSION: In our cohort, the CDS was of limited diagnostic value in ruling in severe dehydration in children with acute gastroenteritis. The WHO and Gorelick scales were not helpful in the assessment of dehydration. What is Known : • Treatment of acute gastroenteritis (AGE) is based on assessing and correcting the degree of dehydration. • Several scales combining various signs and symptoms have been developed, including the Clinical Dehydration Scale (CDS), and the World Health Organization (WHO) scale, and the Gorelick scale. None of these scales is internationally accepted for best accuracy in diagnosing dehydration in children. What is New: • The CDS was of limited diagnostic value in ruling in severe dehydration in children with AGE. • The WHO and Gorelick scales were not helpful in the assessment of dehydration.

Diagnostic accuracy of three clinical dehydration scales: a systematic review.

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.

The diagnostic accuracy of Clinical Dehydration Scale in identifying dehydration in children with acute gastroenteritis: a systematic review.

AIM: To systematically update diagnostic accuracy of the Clinical Dehydration Scale (CDS) in clinical recognition of dehydration in children with acute gastroenteritis. METHODS: Six databases were searched for diagnostic accuracy studies in which population were children aged 1 to 36 months with acute gastroenteritis; index test was the CDS; and reference test was post-illness weight gain. RESULTS: Three studies involving 360 children were included. Limited evidence showed that in high-income countries the CDS provides strong diagnostic accuracy for ruling in moderate and severe (>6%) dehydration (positive likelihood ratio 5.2-6.6), but has limited value for ruling it out (negative likelihood ratio 0.4-0.55). In low-income countries, the CDS has limited value either for ruling moderate or severe dehydration in or out. In both settings, the CDS had limited value for ruling in or out dehydration <3% or dehydration 3% to 6%. CONCLUSION: The CDS can help assess moderate to severe dehydration in high-income settings. Given the limited data, the evidence should be viewed with caution.