ReviewNutrients2024
Trends and Missing Links in (De)Hydration Research: A Narrative Review.
Review in Nutrients, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Despite decades of literature on (de)hydration in healthy individuals, many unanswered questions remain. To outline research and policy priorities, it is fundamental to recognize the literature trends on (de)hydration and identify current research gaps, which herein we aimed to pinpoint. From a representative sample of 180 (de)hydration studies with 4350 individuals, we found that research is mainly limited to small-scale laboratory-based sample sizes, with high variability in demographics (sex, age, and level of competition); to non-ecological (highly simulated and controlled) conditions; and with a focus on recreationally active male adults (e.g., Tier 1, non-athletes). The laboratory-simulated environments are limiting factors underpinning the need to better translate scientific research into field studies. Although, consistently, dehydration is defined as the loss of 2% of body weight, the hydration status is estimated using a very heterogeneous range of parameters. Water is the most researched hydration fluid, followed by alcoholic beverages with added carbohydrates (CHO). The current research still overlooks beverages supplemented with proteins, amino acids (AA), and glycerol. Future research should invest more effort in "real-world" studies with larger and more heterogeneous cohorts, exploring the entire available spectrum of fluids while addressing hydration outcomes more harmoniously.
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.