This Article
Right arrow Full Text
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow P3Rs: Submit a response
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me when P3Rs are posted
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Services
Right arrow E-mail this article to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Similar articles in PubMed
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Add to My File Cabinet
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrow reprints & permissions
Citing Articles
Right arrow Citing Articles via HighWire
Right arrow Citing Articles via CrossRef
Right arrow Citing Articles via Google Scholar
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Hirschhorn, N.
Right arrow Articles by Duggan, C.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by Hirschhorn, N.
Right arrow Articles by Duggan, C.

PEDIATRICS Vol. 109 No. 4 April 2002, pp. 713-715

CHOICE Study Group Trial

To the Editor—

Oral rehydration therapy with the WHO formulation has saved millions of lives,1 but has yet to achieve universal acceptance because, although it performs the essential function of maintaining water and electrolyte balance during acute watery diarrhea, it does not reduce diarrhea volume. It has been proposed that a lower osmolar formula might achieve this aim by substituting rice for glucose or reducing the concentrations of sodium and glucose.2 To that end, the CHOICE Study Group compared the WHO standard oral rehydration solution (311 mmol/L) with a reduced osmolar solution (245 mmol/L) to try and reduce stool output, vomiting, and the need to return to intravenous therapy ("unscheduled").3 Based on results from this and 14 other trials,4 recommendations may be offered either to stay with the standard formula worldwide or to propose changes.

The results from this double-blind study at 5 centers with a total of 675 children were unambiguous: scarcely a whisper of difference between study and control groups in stool output and duration or vomiting; and a marginally significant difference in the need for unscheduled intravenous therapy in the first 24 hours (34/341 and 50/334, odds ratio 0.6, confidence interval [0.4, 1.0]). Since the criterion for unscheduled IV was intended to be clinical observation of dehydration or failure to become rehydrated on oral rehydration salt (the actual observations leading to the clinical decisions were . . . [Full Text of this Article]




This article has been cited by other articles:


Home page
 JAMAHome page
C. Duggan, O. Fontaine, N. F. Pierce, R. I. Glass, D. Mahalanabis, N. H. Alam, M. K. Bhan, and M. Santosham
Scientific Rationale for a Change in the Composition of Oral Rehydration Solution
JAMA, June 2, 2004; 291(21): 2628 - 2631.
[Full Text] [PDF]