PEDIATRICS Vol. 99 No. 5 May 1997, p. e6
Copyright ©1997 by the American Academy of Pediatrics

ELECTRONIC ARTICLE:
Validity and Reliability of Clinical Signs in the Diagnosis of Dehydration in Children

Received Apr 2, 1996; accepted Jun 4, 1996.

Marc H. Gorelick^{*, §}, Kathy N. Shaw^{*, §}, and Kathleen O. Murphy

From the ^* Division of Emergency Medicine and the  Department of Nursing, Children's Hospital of Philadelphia, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania; and the ^§ Department of Pediatrics and the Center for Clinical Epidemiology and Biostatistics, University of Pennsylvania School of Medicine, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania.

Objective.  To determine the validity and reliability of various clinical findings in the diagnosis of dehydration in children.

Design.  Prospective cohort study.

Setting.  An urban pediatric hospital emergency department.

Participants.  One hundred eighty-six children ranging in age from 1 month to 5 years old with diarrhea, vomiting, or poor oral fluid intake, either admitted or followed as outpatients. Exclusion criteria included malnutrition, recent prior therapy at another facility, symptoms for longer than 5 days' duration, and hyponatremia or hypernatremia.

Methods.  All children were evaluated for 10 clinical signs before treatment. The diagnostic standard for dehydration was fluid deficit as determined from serial weight gain after treatment.

Main Results.  Sixty-three children (34%) had dehydration, defined as a deficit of 5% or more of body weight. At this deficit, clinical signs were already apparent (median = 5). Individual findings had generally low sensitivity and high specificity, although parent report of decreased urine output was sensitive but not specific. The presence of any three or more signs had a sensitivity of 87% and specificity of 82% for detecting a deficit of 5% or more. A subset of four factorscapillary refill >2 seconds, absent tears, dry mucous membranes, and ill general appearancepredicted dehydration as well as the entire set, with the presence of any two or more of these signs indicating a deficit of at least 5%. Interobserver reliability was good to excellent for all but one of the findings studied (quality of respirations).

Conclusions.  Conventionally used clinical signs of dehydration are valid and reliable; however, individual findings lack sensitivity. Diagnosis of clinically important dehydration should be based on the presence of at least three clinical findings. dehydration, capillary refill, clinical assessment, interobserver agreement.

CiteULike    Connotea    Del.icio.us    Digg    Facebook    Reddit    Technorati    Twitter    What's this?

This article has been cited by other articles:

				M. J. Steiner, D. A. DeWalt, and J. S. Byerley Is This Child Dehydrated? JAMA, June 9, 2004; 291(22): 2746 - 2754. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]