Article

Manejo de la gastroenteritis aguda en menores de 5 años: un enfoque basado en la evidencia

Anales españoles de pediatría: Publicación oficial de la Asociación Española de Pediatría (AEP), ISSN 1695-4033, Vol. 72, Nº. 3, 2010, pags. 1-20 01/2010; DOI: 10.1016/j.anpedi.2009.11.010
Source: OAI

ABSTRACT La morbi-mortalidad en menores de 5 años por gastroenteritis aguda (GEA) en países en desarrollo sigue siendo elevada. Los autores han elaborado un documento que ayude a tomar decisiones en el tratamiento del menor de 5 años con GEA en el contexto Ibero-latinoamericano. Se realizó una revisión sistemática de la literatura (mayo 2008). La gradación de la evidencia se realizó siguiendo las guías Oxford y expertos latinoamericanos opinaron respecto a las recomendaciones. La rehidratación oral representa la piedra angular del tratamiento de la GEA en niños, asociándose a menos efectos adversos que la rehidratación intravenosa. La GEA no es contraindicación para la alimentación normal. Racecadotrilo, zinc y esmectita pueden coadyuvar al tratamiento, así como Lactobacillus GG y Saccharomyces boulardii. No se recomiendan otros fármacos. En el tratamiento de niños con GEA se recomienda la rehidratación oral junto con racecadotrilo, zinc o esmectita, y algunos probióticos.

0 Bookmarks
 · 
63 Views
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: The ability to assess the degree of dehydration quickly and accurately in infants and young children often determines patient treatment and disposition. To systematically review the precision and accuracy of symptoms, signs, and basic laboratory tests for evaluating dehydration in infants and children. We identified 1561 potential articles by multiple search strategies of the MEDLINE database through PubMed. Searches of bibliographies of retrieved articles, the Cochrane Library, textbooks, and private collections of experts in the field yielded an additional 42 articles. Twenty-six of 1603 reviewed studies contained original data on the precision or accuracy of findings for the diagnosis of dehydration in young children (1 month to 5 years). Two of the 3 authors independently reviewed and abstracted data for estimating the likelihood ratios (LRs) of diagnostic tests. We eliminated 13 of the 26 studies because of the lack of an accepted diagnostic standard or other limitation in study design. The other 13 studies were included in the review. The most useful individual signs for predicting 5% dehydration in children are an abnormal capillary refill time (LR, 4.1; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.7-9.8), abnormal skin turgor (LR, 2.5; 95% CI, 1.5-4.2), and abnormal respiratory pattern (LR, 2.0; 95% CI, 1.5-2.7). Combinations of examination signs perform markedly better than any individual sign in predicting dehydration. Historical points and laboratory tests have only modest utility for assessing dehydration. The initial assessment of dehydration in young children should focus on estimating capillary refill time, skin turgor, and respiratory pattern and using combinations of other signs. The relative imprecision and inaccuracy of available tests limit the ability of clinicians to estimate the exact degree of dehydration.
    JAMA The Journal of the American Medical Association 07/2004; 291(22):2746-54. · 29.98 Impact Factor
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: To develop optimal search strategies in Medline for retrieving systematic reviews. Analytical survey. 161 journals published in 2000 indexed in Medline. The sensitivity, specificity, and precision of retrieval of systematic reviews of 4862 unique terms in 782,485 combinations of one to five terms were determined by comparison with a hand search of all articles (the criterion standard) in 161 journals published during 2000 (49,028 articles). Only 753 (1.5%) of the 49,028 articles were systematic reviews. The most sensitive strategy included five terms and had a sensitivity of 99.9% (95% confidence interval 99.6% to 100%) and a specificity of 52% (51.6% to 52.5%). The strategy that best minimised the difference between sensitivity and specificity had a sensitivity of 98% (97% to 99%) and specificity of 90.8% (90.5% to 91.1%). Highest precision for multiterm strategies, 57% (54% to 60%), was achieved at a sensitivity of 71% (68% to 74%). The term "cochrane database of systematic reviews.jn." was the most precise single term search strategy (sensitivity of 56% (52% to 60%) and precision of 96% (94% to 98%)). These strategies are available through the "limit" screen of Ovid's search interface for Medline. Systematic reviews can be retrieved from Medline with close to perfect sensitivity or specificity, or with high precision, by using empirical search strategies.
    BMJ (online) 02/2005; 330(7482):68. · 17.22 Impact Factor
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: To develop a clinical dehydration scale for use in children <3 years of age. Prospective cohort study of children between 1 and 36 months of age who presented to a tertiary pediatric emergency department (ED) with gastroenteritis. Children were weighed and scored for 12 clinical signs, were rehydrated, and then were reweighed and rescored when rehydration was completed. Weight change from pre- to post-rehydration was used to assess criterion validity with independent global assessments of dehydration severity by attending physicians and nurses as measures of construct validity. Formal approaches to item selection and reduction, reliability, discriminatory power, validity, and responsiveness were used. 137 children (median age: 18 months) with gastroenteritis were studied. The final dehydration scale consisted of four clinical characteristics: general appearance, eyes, mucous membranes, and tears. The measurement properties were as follows: validity as assessed by Pearson's correlation coefficient was 0.36 to 0.57; reliability as assessed by the intra-class correlation coefficient was 0.77; discriminatory power as assessed by Ferguson's delta was 0.83; and responsiveness to change as assessed by Wilcoxon signed rank test was significant at P <.01. Clinicians and researchers may consider this four-item, 8-point rating scale, developed using formal measurement methodology, as an alternative to scales developed ad hoc.
    Journal of Pediatrics 09/2004; 145(2):201-7. · 4.04 Impact Factor