MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1580080219 · doi:10.1002/14651858.cd003017

Pharmacological interventions for recurrent abdominal pain (RAP) in childhood

2002· review· en· W1580080219 on OpenAlexaff
Angela Huertas‐Ceballos, Christine MacArthur, Stuart Logan

Post-publication record

NatureRetraction
ReasonRetract and Replace;Removed;Withdrawn as Out of Date;
Date2/17/2014 0:00
Flagged by OpenAlex?Yes

Source: Retraction Watch, joined by DOI. OpenAlex records retraction as is_retracted, a boolean over a state space with at least four values, so it cannot express an expression of concern, a correction or a reinstatement; it reports them as false, which reads as “fine”.

Bibliographic record

VenueCochrane Database of Systematic Reviews · 2002
Typereview
Languageen
Field
Topic
Canadian institutionsSickKids FoundationHospital for Sick Children
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicinePlaceboCINAHLAbdominal painCochrane LibraryPhysical therapyPsychological interventionMEDLINEAbdomenPediatricsRandomized controlled trialInternal medicineAlternative medicineSurgeryPsychiatry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Between 4% and 25% of school age children complain of recurrent abdominal pain (RAP) of sufficient severity to interfere with daily activities. For the majority of such children no organic cause for their pain can be found on physical examination or investigation. Although most children are likely managed by reassurance and simple measures, a large range of interventions has been recommended. OBJECTIVES: To determine the effectiveness of medication for recurrent abdominal pain in school-age children. SEARCH STRATEGY: The Cochrane Library (CENTRAL), MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL, ERIC, PsycLIT, LILACS and JICST were searched using a strategy combining (Recurrent OR synonyms) AND (Abdomen OR synonyms) AND (Pain OR synonyms). Where appropriate search filters were employed. In addition, researchers working in this area were asked to identify relevant studies. SELECTION CRITERIA: Any study in which the majority of participants were school age children fulfilling standard criteria for RAP, and who were allocated by random or quasi-random methods to any drug treatment compared with a placebo or no treatment. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: References identified by the searches were screened against the inclusion criteria by two independent reviewers. MAIN RESULTS: Only one trial met the inclusion criteria. This cross-over trial in 14 children who met suggested criteria for "abdominal migraine" compared pizotifen and placebo, each given for one month with no washout period. Participants reported a mean of 8.21 (95% CI 2.93, 13.48) fewer days of pain while taking the active drug. They also reported that the mean difference on an "Index of Severity" was -16.21 (95% CI -26.51, -5.90) and on an "Index of Misery" was -56.07 (95% CI -94.07, -18.07). REVIEWER'S CONCLUSIONS: There is little evidence to suggest that recommended drugs are effective in the management of RAP. At present there seems little justification for the use of these drugs other than in clinical trials. There is an urgent need for trials of all suggested pharmacologic interventions in children with RAP.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.009
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Systematic review · Consensus signal: Systematic review
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.005
Threshold uncertainty score0.016

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.009
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0030.002
Bibliometrics0.0020.002
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0020.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0050.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.293
GPT teacher head0.465
Teacher spread0.173 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designSystematic review
Domainnot available
GenreReview

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations42
Published2002
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCochrane Database of Systematic ReviewsFrench-language works237,207