Evidence map›Paper›PMID 33158071›Full record

ReviewNutrients2020

Fluid Intake Recommendation Considering the Physiological Adaptations of Adults Over 65 Years: A Critical Review.

Olga Masot, Jèssica Miranda, Ana Lavedán Santamaría, Elena Paraiso Pueyo, Alexandra Pascual, Teresa Botigué

Registry-linked trialAbstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Nutrients, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT06520033 (Robotics as a Useful Tool to Improve the Hydration of the Elderly), which is not on this map. Cited by 20 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
20citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from 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.

2 · The registry

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.

NCT06520033 nacompletednot on this mapstarted 2024, after this paper: background citation

Robotics as a Useful Tool to Improve the Hydration of the Elderly

TypeinterventionalSponsorUniversitat de LleidaRan2024 to 2024Enrolled57ConditionsDehydration, Daily Fluid Intake, Urinary InfectionsArmshumanoid robot, Usual care
3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

20 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Trial
  3. Review
  4. Review
  5. Article
  6. Body fluid regulation.Current opinion in neurobiology · 2025
    Review
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Observational
  10. Review
  11. Article
  12. Review
  13. Article
  14. Nocturnal polyuria and nocturia.International urology and nephrology · 2023
    Review
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Review
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Review
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

6 authors.

Olga MasotDepartment of Nursing and Physiotherapy, University of Lleida, 25198 Lleida, Spain.ORCID 0000-0002-5721-5622
Jèssica MirandaHealth Care Research Group (GRECS), Biomedical Research Institute of Lleida, 25196 Lleida, Spain.ORCID 0000-0003-0967-1719
Ana Lavedán SantamaríaDepartment of Nursing and Physiotherapy, University of Lleida, 25198 Lleida, Spain.
Elena Paraiso PueyoDepartment of Nursing and Physiotherapy, University of Lleida, 25198 Lleida, Spain.
Alexandra PascualDepartment of Nursing and Physiotherapy, University of Lleida, 25198 Lleida, Spain.
Teresa BotiguéDepartment of Nursing and Physiotherapy, University of Lleida, 25198 Lleida, Spain.ORCID 0000-0001-8178-1192

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The aim of this critical review was to clarify recommended fluid intake for older people. A literature search of published articles and guidelines on fluid intake recommendations until April 2020 was carried out using PUBMED, Scopus, Cochrane, and Google Scholar. In this review, we focused on people over 65 years old at different care levels. The results show that the mean fluid intake ranges between 311 and 2390 mL/day. However, it is difficult to know whether this corresponds to the real pattern of fluid intake, due to the variability of data collection methods. With respect to the recommendations, most international organizations do not take into consideration the physiology of ageing or the health problems associated with an older population. In conclusions, we recommend to follow the guideline of the European Society for Clinical Nutrition and Metabolism (ESPEN) and the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA). ESPEN is the only guideline which takes into account age. It is also based on EFSA recommendations. This authority takes into consideration all fluids consumed (ranging from food to fluids). If it is known that around 20% of all fluids consumed come from food, the result would effectively be that the EFSA recommends the same as the ESPEN guidelines: 1.6 L/day for females and 2.0 L/day for males. The findings could help raise the awareness of professionals in the sector with respect to the required fluid intake of the elderly and, in this way, contribute to avoiding the consequences of dehydration.

Indexed as

Adaptation, PhysiologicalHealth Planning GuidelinesAgedDrinkingHealthHumansWater-Electrolyte Balancefluid intakeolder peoplephysiological adaptationsrecommendation

Identifiers

PMID33158071
PMCPMC7694182

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

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.