Lacey, J;
Corbett, J;
Forni, L;
Hooper, L;
Hughes, F;
Minto, G;
Moss, C;
... Montgomery, H; + view all
(2019)
A Multidisciplinary Consensus on Dehydration: definitions, diagnostic methods and clinical implications.
Annals of Medicine
, 51
(3/4)
10.1080/07853890.2019.1628352.
Preview |
Text
Lacey_A Multidisciplinary Consensus on Dehydration. Definitions, diagnostic methods and clinical implications_AAM.pdf - Accepted Version Download (575kB) | Preview |
Abstract
Background: Dehydration appears prevalent, costly and associated with adverse outcomes. We sought to generate consensus on such key issues and elucidate need for further scientific enquiry. Materials and methods: A modified Delphi process combined expert opinion and evidence appraisal. Twelve relevant experts addressed dehydration’s definition, objective markers and impact on physiology and outcome. Results: Fifteen consensus statements and seven research recommendations were generated. Key findings, evidenced in detail, were that there is no universally accepted definition for dehydration; hydration assessment is complex and requires combining physiological and laboratory variables; “dehydration” and “hypovolaemia” are incorrectly used interchangeably; abnormal hydration status includes relative and/or absolute abnormalities in body water and serum/plasma osmolality (pOsm); raised pOsm usually indicates dehydration; direct measurement of pOsm is the gold standard for determining dehydration; pOsm >300 and ≤280 mOsm/kg classifies a person as hyper or hypo-osmolar; outside extremes, signs of adult dehydration are subtle and unreliable; dehydration is common in hospitals and care homes and associated with poorer outcomes. Discussion: Dehydration poses risk to public health. Dehydration is under-recognized and poorly managed in hospital and community-based care. Further research is required to improve assessment and management of dehydration and the authors have made recommendations to focus academic endeavours.
Archive Staff Only
 |
View Item |
