Supplement evidence

084 / 575Digestive support

Oral rehydration salts

View my plan →

The short answer

Correctly formulated glucose-electrolyte solutions treat dehydration from diarrhea and fluid loss.

Evidence and scope: Established for an indicated use
This status does not grade the ingredient for every goal, outcome, or person.
Important limitation: The benefit is tied to the stated indication, dose, and population; it is not evidence of broader disease prevention or longer life.
Before deciding: Key concern: Kidney/heart failure, severe dehydration, altered consciousness, bloody diarrhea, or persistent vomiting require medical care.

01 / PRACTICAL GUIDE

Dose, absorption, and combinations

These are indication-specific reference or studied ranges—not a personalized prescription. Start with the objective, then check the form, label, medicines, and health conditions.

Reference range by objective

Oral rehydrationMix exactly as labeled or use WHO-formulated solution; sip according to losses

Reference or studied range—not a personalized prescription. The product label or a clinician may specify a different dose.

Dose source ↗

More is not automatically better. A clinician or product label may specify a different amount.

Absorption / solubilityFat/water classification is not the key factor

Fat/water solubility is not the useful decision point; preparation, fluid, timing, or strain identity matters more.

How it is commonly taken

Use the exact water volume; do not make it more concentrated.

Do not combine casually

Kidney/heart failure, severe dehydration, altered consciousness, bloody diarrhea, or persistent vomiting require medical care.

Dose and use source ↗

Dose and use links lead to primary or official source material. Search links are discovery tools, not proof that every returned paper applies.

02 / EVIDENCE

What the research says

We keep supportive, mixed, negative, safety, and contextual findings together. The headline never replaces the underlying papers.

2research papers in this ledger

15unique primary studies represented

447unique participants represented

These are audited counts for this JIVANA collection, not search-result totals. Participants are counted once when multiple papers use the same cohort; review papers are not added again to participant totals.

Open the research timelineResearch timeline

Entries are ordered by publication year. A study period appears only when the source reports it.

2004

Supports a specific usePMID 15086953

Oral rehydration versus intravenous therapy for childhood gastroenteritis dehydration

There was no clinically important efficacy or safety difference for appropriate children; about one in 25 assigned oral therapy required intravenous rescue. Hospital stay was shorter with oral therapy, while trial quality was low and persistent vomiting limited applicability. The abstract omitted an aggregate participant count.

Published: 200414 primary studies represented

Study design and methods

Design: Systematic review and meta-analysis of 14 randomized or quasi-randomized trials
Population: Children with dehydration caused by acute gastroenteritis
Intervention: Oral rehydration therapy versus intravenous fluids
Outcome: Rehydration failure, mortality, electrolyte disturbance, length of stay, phlebitis, and ileus

Open research record ↗

1995

Supports a specific usePMID 7837862

Multicentre evaluation of reduced-osmolarity oral rehydration salts

Standard ORS produced 39% more stool output, 18% more ORS intake, and 22% longer diarrhea than reduced-osmolarity ORS. Intravenous rescue was numerically more common with standard ORS; cholera applicability remained uncertain.

Published: 1995n=447 participants

Study design and methods

Design: Randomized four-country multicenter trial
Population: 447 boys aged 1–24 months with acute diarrhea and dehydration
Intervention: Reduced-osmolarity ORS 224 mmol/L versus then-standard ORS 311 mmol/L
Outcome: Stool output, ORS intake, diarrhea duration, intravenous rescue, and sodium

Open research record ↗

Unscreened discovery appendix—not evidence268 candidate publicationsSearch run: Aug 21, 2026

Complete for the displayed PubMed query at the search timestamp—not for all databases or every possible synonym. Candidates can be irrelevant, duplicate the same study, or report negative findings. They are never summed as evidence or participants until screened.

03 / SOURCES

Start with the source material

Official evidence overviewPubMed bounded human-evidence search Live PubMed discovery searchNational Library of Medicine

The live search is for discovery only. Search-result counts change and are not included in the audited totals above.

Recent PubMed discovery recordsDirect links to the first 12 records returned by the reproducible search. These are discovery candidates—not reviewed summaries or a count of supportive findings.

04 / EXPERT CONTEXT

Expert context—not evidence

Expert positions are dated context—not scientific evidence. They never raise the evidence status or become consensus by repetition.

No direct, source-verified endorsement is currently recorded. Research authorship or discussion alone is not treated as endorsement.