In children with vomiting related to acute gastroenteritis, are antiemetic medications an effective adjunct to fluid and electrolyte therapy?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Vomiting is unpleasant and distressing for a child and for the parents. Vomiting can limit the effectiveness of oral rehydration therapy, and can increase the risk of dehydration, as well as the need for intravenous hydration and hospitalization. Antiemetic medications are commonly prescribed to treat vomiting in children with acute gastroenteritis (1–4). However, only a few efficacy studies (5–10) have been published on the use of antiemetic medications in paediatric gastroenteritis. These studies are summarized in Table 1. ... In a Cochrane review, Alhashimi et al (11) reviewed three of the above five studies. The study by van Eygen et al (5) was excluded because the outcome measures were considered to be unsatisfactory. The study by Reeves et al (7) was also excluded, because patients up to 22 years of age were included. The studies by Cubeddu et al (6), Ramsook et al (8) and Freedman et al (9) were criticized by these Cochrane reviewers, because the outcome measures were a reduction of emetic episodes rather than the precise time to cessation of vomiting. Alhashimi et al (11) concluded that the three trials provided some evidence, albeit weak and unreliable, that favoured the use of ondansetron and metoclopramide over placebo for the treatment of vomiting associated with childhood gastroenteritis. It was hoped that the study by Reeves et al (7) would be included in the review after the data from the adult patients were excluded from the analysis. The study by Stork et al (10) was not included in the review, presumably because the study had not been published at the time of the review.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.004 | 0.026 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.001 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".