Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 336

The DOI matches its Crossref record.

Validity and Reliability of Clinical Signs in the Diagnosis of Dehydration in Children

Gorelick, Marc H., Shaw, Kathy N., Murphy, Kathleen O.·1997·Pediatrics

Abstract

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 factors—capillary refill >2 seconds, absent tears, dry mucous membranes, and ill general appearance—predicted 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.

Overview

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1542/peds.99.5.e6

Cites

Statistics

Verification

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Citations

Cited by

See all 336

Metadata

Authors
Gorelick, M. H., Shaw, K. N., & Murphy, K. O.
Venue
Pediatrics
Published
1997-05-01
Volume
99
Issue
5
Pages
e6-e6
ISSN
  • 0031-4005 (ISSN-L)
  • 1098-4275
OpenAlex
W2139900155
Cited by
336
References
0
FWCI
2.05
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review

How to cite

Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.

This page
CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Validity and Reliability of Clinical Signs in the Diagnosis of Dehydration in Children. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1542/peds.99.5.e6
The paper
Gorelick, M. H., Shaw, K. N., & Murphy, K. O. (1997). Validity and Reliability of Clinical Signs in the Diagnosis of Dehydration in Children. Pediatrics. https://doi.org/10.1542/peds.99.5.e6

Data sources

Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.

Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).

Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.