For the critical outcome of survival to hospital discharge, for the use of restrictive fluids in sepsis/septic shock, we identified very-low-quality evidence (downgraded for risk of bias, indirectness, and imprecision) from 1 pediatric RCT(Santhanam 2008, 647-655) enrolling 147 patients showing no benefit (RR, 0.99; 95% CI, 0.86–1.16), and from 1 observational pediatric study(Carcillo 1991, 1242-1245) enrolling 34 patients showing no benefit (RR, 0.71; 95% CI, 0.35–1.44). For the use of restrictive fluids in severe malaria, we identified low-quality evidence (downgraded for risk of bias and imprecision) from 2 pediatric RCT(Maitland 2005, 393-400; Maitland 2005, 538-545) enrolling 106 patients showing no benefit (RR, 1.09; 95% CI, 0.94–1.27). For the use of restrictive fluids in dengue shock syndrome, we identified no studies. For the use of restrictive fluids in “severe febrile illness” with some but not all signs of shock, we identified low-quality evidence (downgraded for risk of bias and imprecision) from 2 RCTs(Maitland 2011, 2483-2495; Maitland 2013, 68) enrolling 2091 patients showing benefit (RR, 1.05; 95% CI, 1.03–1.07). For the critical outcome of survival to hospital discharge, for the use of noncrystalloid fluids in sepsis/septic shock, we identified low-quality evidence (downgraded for risk of bias and imprecision) from 1 pediatric RCT(Upadhyay 2005, 223-231) enrolling 60 patients showing no benefit (RR, 1.13; 95% CI, 0.77–1.63). For the use of noncrystalloid fluids in severe malaria, we identified no studies. For the use of noncrystalloid fluids in dengue shock syndrome, we identified moderate-quality evidence (downgraded for risk of bias) from 4 pediatric RCTs(Dung 1999, 787-794; Ngo 2001, 204-213; Cifra 2003, 95-100; Wills 2005, 877-889) enrolling 682 patients showing no benefit (RR, 0.98; 95% CI, 0.96–1.00). For the use of noncrystalloid fluids in “severe febrile illness” with some but not all signs of shock, we identified low-quality evidence (downgraded for risk of bias and imprecision) from 1 pediatric RCT(Maitland 2011, 2483-2495) enrolling 2097 patients showing no benefit (RR, 0.99; 95% CI, 0.97–1.03). For the critical outcome of complications (need for transfusion and diuretic therapy), for the use of restrictive fluids in sepsis/septic shock, we identified very-low-quality evidence (downgraded for risk of bias, indirectness, imprecision) from 1 observational pediatric study(Carcillo 1991, 1242-1245) enrolling 34 patients showing no benefit (RR, 1.43; 95% CI, 0.71–2.88). For the use of restrictive fluids in severe malaria, we identified low-quality evidence (downgraded for risk of bias and imprecision) from 2 pediatric RCTs(Maitland 2005, 393-400; Maitland 2005, 538-545) enrolling 106 patients showing no benefit (0% versus 5.4%; P=0.09). For the use of restrictive fluids in dengue shock syndrome, we identified no studies. For the use of restrictive fluids in “severe febrile illness” with some but not all signs of shock, we identified low-quality evidence (downgraded for risk of bias and imprecision) from 1 pediatric RCT(Maitland 2011, 2483-2495) enrolling 2091 patients showing no benefit (RR, 0.59; 95% CI, 0.3–1.17). For the critical outcome of complications (need for transfusion and diuretic therapy), for the use of noncrystalloid fluids in sepsis/septic shock, we identified low-quality evidence (downgraded for risk of bias and imprecision) from 1 pediatric RCT(Upadhyay 2005, 223-231) enrolling 60 patients showing no benefit (RR, 1.18; 95% CI, 0.48–2.87). For the use of noncrystalloid fluids in severe malaria, we identified very-low-quality evidence (downgraded for imprecision) from 1 observational pediatric study(Maitland 2003, 426-431) enrolling 52 patients showing no benefit (0% versus 0%). For the use of noncrystalloid fluids in dengue shock syndrome, we identified low-quality evidence (downgraded for risk of bias and imprecision) from 4 pediatric RCTs(Dung 1999, 787-794; Ngo 2001, 204-213; Cifra 2003, 95-100; Wills 2005, 877-889) enrolling 682 patients showing no benefit (RR, 1.3; 95% CI, 0.95–1.79). For the use of noncrystalloid fluids in “severe febrile illness” with some but not all signs of shock, we identified low-quality evidence (downgraded for risk of bias and imprecision) from 1 pediatric RCT(Maitland 2011, 2483-2495) enrolling 2097 patients showing no benefit (RR, 1.17; 95% CI, 0.68–2.02). For the critical outcome of complications (need for rescue fluid), for the use of restrictive fluids in sepsis/septic shock, we identified no studies. For the use of restrictive fluids in severe malaria, we identified low-quality evidence (downgraded for risk of bias and imprecision) from 2 pediatric RCTs(Maitland 2005, 393-400; Maitland 2005, 538-545) enrolling 106 patients showing harm (17.6% versus 0.0%; P |