ReviewEuropean geriatric medicine2026
Parenteral hydration and the cognitively impaired: the important role of subcutaneous hydration.
Review in European geriatric medicine, 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
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeDehydration is common among those admitted to hospital with delirium or dementia and may itself contribute to cognitive impairment. Agitated behaviors are also common in such patients and may lead to difficulty in maintenance of peripheral IV cannulas. In this paper, we examine the potential advantages and drawbacks of subcutaneous (SC) compared with intravenous (IV) hydration in patients with cognitive impairment and mild-to-moderate dehydration.
methodsWe reviewed and summarized the available literature on SC versus IV hydration in patients with cognitive impairment and the impact on agitation and cannula maintenance in particular.
resultsCompared with IV hydration, SC hydration is faster to establish and associated with fewer adverse effects. A meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials found that SC hydration in patients with cognitive impairment results in a lower risk of agitation (relative risk 0.40 [95% CI 0.22-0.72]) compared with IV hydration. Furthermore, there is an 80% reduced risk of catheter dislodgment. It is likely that the reduced risk of agitation and catheter dislodgment is causally related to the fact that subcutaneous access is less traumatic approach for a population at high risk for agitation.
conclusionSC hydration has many advantages and few disadvantages for those with mild-to-moderate dehydration and cognitive impairment who need parenteral hydration. It should, in our opinion, always be considered in this population. It is important, however, that ease of use does not lead to overuse, especially where low-intake dehydration may represent part of the natural course of advanced illness.
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.