Évaluation d’un nouveau dispositif d’aide à l’administration de médicaments en pédiatrie : le système Rx Medibottle
Bibliographic record
Abstract
ABSTRACT The aim of this study was to evaluate a new pediatric administration system for oral liquid medications: the Rx Medibottle (a nursing bottle with an inner sleeve holding a feeding syringe). Oral drug administration with and without the Rx Medibottle was compared in a crossover trial in 30 children. The study criteria were acceptance of the system by the infants (as indicated by cries and tears, facial expression, gestures and degree of agitation, introduction of device into the mouth, medication absorption, and compliance) and the convenience of use by nurses (preparation and administration of drugs, quantity of drug administered, and duration of administration). Each criterion was given a score of 0 (poor or difficult), 1 (fair or acceptable), or 2 (good or satisfactory). The mean score was calculated for each criterion and each child. The total scores for the Medibottle system were superior to those for the traditional pediatric oral liquid delivery system (nipples, syringes, etc.) in terms of infant acceptance (242 and 222, respectively) and convenience of use by nurses (212 and 204, respectively). However, the differences between the Medibottle system and the traditional system were not statistically significant (p > 0.05). The Medibottle could be an interesting alternative for oral liquid drugs without their own administration system and for infants resistant to the traditional delivery system. RESUME Le but de cette etude etait d’evaluer la Rx Medibottle (combinant un biberon comportant une partie creuse dans laquelle est introduite une seringue de gavage), un nouveau systeme d’aide a l’administration orale de medicaments destine aux nourrissons et aux jeunes enfants. L’administration de medicaments avec et sans l’utilisation de la Medibottle a ete comparee par un essai croise chez 30 enfants. L’acceptation chez l’enfant (indiquee par cris ou pleurs, expression faciale, gestes et degre d’agitation, introduction du dispositif dans la bouche, absorption et observance) et la commodite d’utilisation par les infirmiers et infirmieres (preparation et administration du medicament, quantite de medicament administre, duree d’administration) etaient les criteres etudies. Pour chacun des criteres, trois cotes ont ete utilisees : mediocre/difficile (0 point), moyenne/acceptable (1 point) et bonne/satisfaisante (2 points). Un score moyen par critere et par enfant a ete calcule. Meme si les totaux des scores obtenus avec le systeme Medibottle sont superieurs a ceux obtenus avec le systeme traditionnel d’administration orale pediatrique de medicaments (tetines, seringues…) pour l’acceptation par l’enfant (242 vs 222) et la commodite d’emploi pour les infirmiers et les infirmieres (212 vs 204), il n’existe pas de difference significative entre les deux systemes d’administration (p > 0,05). La Medibottle peut etre une alternative interessante pour les medicaments sous forme de solutions buvables qui ne possedent pas leur propre systeme d’administration et chez les enfants refractaires aux systemes d’administration traditionnels.
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 | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.000 |
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.
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".