ArticleCureus2026
Efficacy and Safety of a Novel Oral Rehydration Solution (ORS) in Managing Diarrhea and Dehydration: A Randomized Study in Indian Patients.
Article in Cureus, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundAcute diarrhea is a leading cause of dehydration-related morbidity. Oral rehydration solution (ORS) remains the cornerstone of treatment, while probiotics have shown additional gut health benefits. This study evaluated the efficacy and safety of a novel probiotic-enriched ORS compared with a standard ORS in Indian patients with acute diarrhea.
methodsIn this randomized, parallel-group study, patients with diarrhea were enrolled and assigned to receive either novel ORS or traditional ORS. Treatment was administered for five days, followed by a four-day observation period and a safety follow-up call. Group 1 received the novel ORS (200 mL/day) for five days, and Group 2 received traditional ORS (200 mL/day) for a similar duration. Efficacy outcomes measured included resolution of diarrhea, time to recovery, patient-reported satisfaction and preference, and Clinical Global Impression-Improvement (CGI-I) score.
resultsIn this randomized, parallel-group study, 60 patients with diarrhea were enrolled and assigned (3:1) to receive either novel ORS (n = 45) or traditional ORS (n = 15). Both groups showed clinical improvement; however, the novel ORS group demonstrated faster resolution. By visit 3, the mean diarrhea episodes were 0.4 (0.62) in the novel ORS group, while 0.9 (0.86) in the traditional group. Higher satisfaction was reported in the novel ORS group (42.2% "very satisfied") along with quicker improvement on the CGI-I score (mean score 1.3 vs. 1.9; p = 0.0120).
conclusionThe novel ORS containing probiotics showed faster symptom resolution, higher patient satisfaction, and comparable safety, supporting its potential as a preferred treatment option for diarrhea management.
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.