ArticleBMC medicine2016
Prevalence, aetiology, treatment and outcomes of shock in children admitted to Kenyan hospitals.
Article in BMC medicine, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 12 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
12 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 22 citations in OpenAlex.
- Etiology, Pathophysiology and Mortality of Shock in Children in Low (Middle) Income Countries: A Systematic Review.Journal of tropical pediatrics · 2022Pooled it
- Rapid intravenous rehydration of children with acute gastroenteritis and dehydration: a systematic review and meta-analysis.BMC pediatrics · 2018Pooled it
- Gastroenteritis aggressive versus slow treatment for rehydration (GASTRO): a phase II rehydration trial for severe dehydration: WHO plan C versus slow rehydration.BMC medicine · 2019Trial
- Implications for paediatric shock management in resource-limited settings: a perspective from the FEAST trial.Critical care (London, England) · 2018Trial
- Evaluation of non-thyroidal illness syndrome in shock patients admitted to pediatric intensive care unit in a developing country.European journal of pediatrics · 2024Observational
- Prevalence, mortality, and aetiology of paediatric shock in a tertiary hospital in Malawi: A cohort study.PLOS global public health · 2024Article
- Observational
- Employing learning health system principles to advance research on severe neonatal and paediatric illness in Kenya.BMJ global health · 2021Review
- Evaluation of ventilator on lung profile of piglets (Veterinary world · 2019Article
- Approaching quality improvement at scale: a learning health system approach in Kenya.Archives of disease in childhood · 2018Article
- Gastroenteritis Aggressive Versus Slow Treatment For Rehydration (GASTRO). A pilot rehydration study for severe dehydration: WHO plan C versus slower rehydration.Wellcome open research · 2017Article
- Perspectives on aetiology, pathophysiology and management of shock in African children.African journal of emergency medicine : Revue africaine de la medecine d'urgence · 2017Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors at 2 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundShock may complicate several acute childhood illnesses in hospitals within low-income countries and has a high case fatality. Hypovolemic shock secondary to diarrhoea/dehydration and septic shock are thought to be common, but there are few reliable data on prevalence or treatment that differ for the two major forms of shock. Examining prevalence and treatment practices has become important since reports suggest high risks from liberal use of fluid boluses in African children. The present study aims to estimate the prevalence, fluid management practices and outcomes of shock among hospitalised children.
methodsWe analysed paediatric in-patient data collected using discharge case record review between October 2013 and February 2016 from 14 hospitals in Kenya which are part of a network (referred to as the Clinical Information Network) using similar tools for standardised clinical records with care directed by the local clinical team leaders. Data are from a period after dissemination of national guidance seeking to limit use of bolus fluids.
resultsA total of 74,402 children were admitted between October 2013 and February 2016. Children aged < 30 days or > 5 years, with severe acute malnutrition, surgical/burns, or cases with pre-defined minimum data sets were excluded from analysis. This resulted in 42,937 patients meeting the inclusion criteria. Prevalence of clinically diagnosed shock was 1.5 % (n = 622) and overall bolus use was 0.9 % (n = 366); 41 % (256/622) of children with clinically diagnosed shock did not receive a fluid bolus (but had a fluid plan for management of dehydration). Identified cases appeared mostly to be hypovolaemic shock secondary to dehydration/diarrhoea (94 %, 582/622), with a high case fatality (34 %, 211/622). Overall mortality for all admitted children was 5 % (2115/42,937) and was 7.9 % (798/10,096) in children with dehydration/diarrhoea. The diagnosis of hypovolaemic shock was nearly always accompanied by additional clinical diagnosis (99 %), most often pneumonia or malaria. Where bolus fluids were used, they were prescribed in accordance with guidelines (isotonic fluid at correct volume) in 92 % of cases. Inappropriate use of bolus fluids to treat milder forms of impaired circulation appeared very rarely.
conclusionA diagnosis of shock is uncommon at admission and use of fluid bolus is rare in admissions to Kenyan hospitals. A fluid bolus, when prescribed, is mostly used in children with hypovolemic shock secondary to dehydration and case fatality in these cases is high. We found little evidence of liberal use of fluid bolus that might cause harm in a period following dissemination of national guidelines suggesting very strict criteria for fluid bolus use.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.