OBJECTIVES: 1. To assess effects on learning outcomes of supplementation of polyunsaturated fatty acids (PUFAs) for children with specific learning disorders.2. To determine whether adverse effects of supplementation of PUFAs are reported in these children.
SEARCH METHODS: In November 2015, we searched CENTRAL, Ovid MEDLINE, Embase, PsycINFO, 10 other databases and two trials registers. We also searched the reference lists of relevant articles.
SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) or quasi-RCTs comparing PUFAs with placebo or no treatment in children younger than 18 years with specific learning disabilities, as diagnosed in accordance with the fifth (or earlier) edition of theDiagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM-5), or the 10th (or earlier) revision of the International Classification of Diseases (ICD-10) or equivalent criteria. We included children with coexisting developmental disorders such as attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) or autism.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors (MLT and KHT) independently screened the titles and abstracts of articles identified by the search and eliminated all studies that did not meet the inclusion criteria. We contacted study authors to ask for missing information and clarification, when needed. We used the GRADE approach to assess the quality of evidence.
MAIN RESULTS: Two small studies involving 116 children, mainly boys between 10 and 18 years of age, met the inclusion criteria. One study was conducted in a school setting, the other at a specialised clinic. Both studies used three months of a combination of omega-3 and omega-6 supplements as the intervention compared with placebo. Although both studies had generally low risk of bias, we judged the risk of reporting bias as unclear in one study, and as high in the other study. In addition, one of the studies was funded by industry and reported active company involvement in the study.None of the studies reported data on the primary outcomes of reading, writing, spelling and mathematics scores, as assessed by standardised tests.Evidence of low quality indicates that supplementation of PUFAs did not increase the risk of gastrointestinal disturbances (risk ratio 1.43, 95% confidence interval 0.25 to 8.15; two studies, 116 children). Investigators reported no other adverse effects.Both studies reported attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD)-related behaviour outcomes. We were unable to combine the results in a meta-analysis because one study reported findings as a continuous outcome, and the other as a dichotomous outcome. No other secondary outcomes were reported.We excluded one study because it used a cointervention (carnosine), and five other studies because they did not provide a robust diagnosis of a specific learning disorder. We identified one ongoing study and found three studies awaiting classification.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Evidence is insufficient to permit any conclusions about the effect of PUFAs on the learning abilities of children with specific learning disorders. Well-designed RCTs with clearly defined populations of children with specific learning disorders who have been diagnosed by standardised diagnostic criteria are needed.
METHODS: Women at their first hospitalization for hyperemesis gravidarum were enrolled on admission to the ward and randomly assigned to receive either 5% dextrose-0.9% saline or 0.9% saline by intravenous infusion at a rate 125 mL/h over 24 hours in a double-blind trial. All participants also received thiamine and an antiemetic intravenously. Oral intake was allowed as tolerated. Primary outcomes were resolution of ketonuria and well-being (by 10-point visual numerical rating scale) at 24 hours. Nausea visual numerical rating scale scores were obtained every 8 hours for 24 hours.
RESULTS: Persistent ketonuria rates after the 24-hour study period were 10 of 101 (9.9%) compared with 11 of 101 (10.9%) (P>.99; relative risk 0.9, 95% confidence interval 0.4-2.2) and median (interquartile range) well-being scores at 24 hours were 9 (8-10) compared with 9 (8-9.5) (P=.73) in the 5% dextrose-0.9% saline and 0.9% saline arms, respectively. Repeated measures analysis of variance of the nausea visual numerical rating scale score as assessed every 8 hours during the 24-hour study period showed a significant difference in favor of the 5% dextrose-0.9% saline arm (P=.046) with the superiority apparent at 8 and 16 hours, but the advantage had dissipated by 24 hours. Secondary outcomes of vomiting, resolution of hyponatremia, hypochloremia and hypokalemia, length of hospitalization, duration of intravenous antiemetic, and rehydration were not different.
CONCLUSIONS: Intravenous rehydration with 5% dextrose-0.9% saline or 0.9% saline solution in women hospitalized for hyperemesis gravidarum produced similar outcomes.
CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION: ISRCTN Register, www.controlled-trials.com/isrctn, ISRCTN65014409.
LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: I.