A multidisciplinary consensus on dehydration: definitions, diagnostic methods and clinical implications
Research output: Contribution to journal › Article › peer-review
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.
|Number of pages||20|
|Journal||Annals of Medicine|
|Early online date||17 Jun 2019|
|Publication status||Early online - 17 Jun 2019|
- A multidisciplinary consensus
Rights statement: This is an Accepted Manuscript of an article published by Taylor & Francis in Annals of Medicine on 17/06/19, available online: http://www.tandfonline.com/10.1080/07853890.2019.1628352
Accepted author manuscript (Post-print), 686 KB, PDF document