| Study | Reason for exclusion |
|---|
|
| Australia 1990 | They compared ORS-26 (total 340 mosmol/L, sodium 26 mmol/L, glucose 2.7%) and ORS-60 (total 240 mosmol/L, sodium 60 mmol/L, glucose 1.8%). The ORS-26 was not WHO standard ORS. |
|
| Australia 1993 | They compared Glucolyte (total 343 mosmol/L, sodium 26 mmol/L, glucose 145 mmol/L) and Gastrolyte (total 240 mosmol/L, sodium 60 mmol/L, glucose 90 mmol/L). The Glucolyte was not WHO standard ORS. This was not an RCT but a open-label study. |
|
| Bangladesh 1978 | They compared two isotonic sucrose (111 mmol/L) based and glucose (111 mmol/L) based ORS solutions. They did not use reduced osmolarity ORS. |
|
| Bangladesh 1991 | Maltodextrin containing ORS and WHO standard ORS were compared. They did not clearly report the composition of fluid or exact osmolarities but only mentioned 50 g of maltodextrin was added in the place of glucose which suggests no reduced osmolarity ORS was used. |
|
| Bangladesh 1996b | In this RCT, they compared WHO standard ORS (311 mosmol/L) and low osmolar ORS (249 mosmol/L). This was excluded because the study was performed in adult patients. |
|
| Bangladesh 1999 | This is a RCT comparing WHO standard ORS and low osmolarity ORS. This was excluded because this study was performed in adult patients. |
|
| Costa Rica 1987 | They compared solution A (WHO standard ORS, 311 mosmol/L) and solution B (Pedialyte total 309 osmol/L). They did not use reduced osmolarity ORS. |
|
| Ecuador 1995 | This community study was not a RCT but a crossover design in 4 communities. They compared glucose based ORS (310 to 330 mosmol/L) and rice based ORS (220 to 240 mosmol/L).
None of their outcomes were relevant for this review. |
|
| Egypt 1996a | The intervention group was maltodextrin ORS, and therefore does not meet the inclusion criteria. |
|
| Finland 1985 | ORS-60 (total 304 mosmol/L, sodium 60 mmol/L, glucose 144 mmol/L) and WHO standard ORS (total 331 mosmol/L) were used. ORS-60 was not a reduced osmolarity ORS. |
|
| Finland 1986 | They compared two glycin supplemented ORS (total osmolarity 360 mmol/L and 280 mmol/L) and an ORS with sodium 60 mmol/L (total osmolarity 304 mmol/L). They did not use reduced osmolarity ORS or WHO standard ORS. |
|
| Finland 1993 | Two ORS-60 solutions (sodium 60 mmol/L, each) were compared. One is isotonic (304 mosmol/L and has higher glucose concentration (144 mmol/L), the other hypo-osmolar solution (224 mosmol/L) has 84 mmol/L of glucose. They did not use WHO standard ORS. |
|
| Finland 1997 | They compared one standard ORS (sodium 60 mmol/L, total 304 mosmol/L) and the low osmolarity ORS (sodium 60 mmol/L, total 224 mosmol/L). They did not use WHO standard ORS. |
|
| Finland 1998 | Two hypotonic ORS with osmolarities of 224 osmol/L (sodium 60 mmol/L, glucose 84 mmol/L) and 204 mosmol/L (sodium 60 mmol/L, glucose 64 mmol/L) were compared. They did not use WHO standard ORS and this was not a RCT but an alternate allocation trial. |
|
| France 1990 | They compared solution A (total 326 osmol/L, sodium 49 mmol/L glucose 110 mmol/L) and solution D (total 240 osmol/L, sodium 60 mmol/L, glucose 90 mmol/L). They did not use WHO standard ORS. |
|
| Guinea-Bissau 1999 | This is a community-based RCT where they used WHO standard ORS of 311 osmol/L and reduced osmolarity ORS of 224 osmol/L. None of their outcomes were relevant for this review. |
|
| India 1978 | In this RCT, they used solution A (sodium 90 mmol/L, potassium 15 mmol/L, chlorine 75 mmol/L, bicarbonate 30 mmol/L, glucose 90 mmol/L) and B (sodium 50 mmol/L, potassium 15 mmol/L, chlorine 50 mmol/L, bicarbonate 15 mmol/L, glucose 170 mmol/L. Both solutions have total osmolarity of 300 mosmol/L. |
|
| India 1984b | In this randomized study, they compared WHO standard ORS (sodium 90 mmol/L, potassium 20 mol/L, bicarbonate 30 mmol/L, chlorine 80 mmol/L, and glucose 111 mmol/L, total 331 mmol/L) and glycin fortified ORS of which osmolarity is not lower because 111 mmol/L of glycine was added. |
|
| Iran 1983 | They compared sucrose high sodium (sodium 90 mmol/L, sucrose 111 mol/L, total 331 osmol/L) and sucrose low sodium (sodium 58 mmol/L, total 278 osmol/L) ORS. They did not use WHO standard ORS. |
|
| Mexico 1988 | Appears to contain same patients as Mexico 1990a. |
|
| Mexico 1990b | Appears to contain same patients as Mexico 1990a. |
|
| Myanmar 1991 | They compared WHO standard ORS (311 mmol/L) and maltodextrin/glycine/clycyl-clycine ORS (326 mmol/L). They did not use reduced osmolarity ORS. |
|
| Russia 1997 | They compared WHO standard ORS (331 mmol/L), low ORS (224 mmol/L), and IV fluid infusion, and secondarily lactobacillus GG or placebo. None of their outcomes were relevant for this review. |
|
| Turkey 1985 | This is not an RCT but a comparison of data between two separate studies using ORS-60 and ORS-90. |
|
| Turkey 1986 | This is not an RCT but a comparison between treatment effects of ORS-60 (sodium 60 mmol/L) in malnourished infants with infectious diarrhoea and in a previous study of well-nourished patients. This paper is not an RCT but a comparison of data between two separate studies. |
|
| USA 1972 | They used two hypotonic solutions. This is not an RCT. They did not use WHO standard ORS. |
|
| USA 1986 | They used solution A (sodium 50 mmol/L, glucose 111 mEq/L, 389 mosmol/L) and B (sodium 50 mmol/L, glucose 111 mEq/L, 278 mosmol/L). Solution A had 111 mEq/L of glycine additionally. They did not use WHO standard ORS. |
