Dimenhydrinate in Children With Infectious Gastroenteritis: A Prospective, RCT
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: Vomiting is a common symptom in children with infectious gastroenteritis. It contributes to fluid loss and is a limiting factor for oral rehydration therapy. Dimenhydrinate has traditionally been used for children with gastroenteritis in countries such as Canada and Germany. We investigated the efficacy and safety of dimenhydrinate in children with acute gastroenteritis. METHODS: We performed a prospective, randomized, placebo-controlled, multicenter trial. We randomly assigned 243 children with presumed gastroenteritis and vomiting to rectal dimenhydrinate or placebo. Children with no or mild dehydration were included. All children received oral rehydration therapy. Primary outcome was defined as weight gain within 18 to 24 hours after randomization. Secondary outcomes were number of vomiting episodes, fluid intake, parents' assessment of well-being, number of diarrheal episodes, and admission rate to hospital. We recorded potential adverse effects. RESULTS: Change of weight did not differ between children who received dimenhydrinate or placebo. The mean number of vomiting episodes between randomization and follow-up visit was 0.64 in the dimenhydrinate group and 1.36 in the placebo group. In total, 69.6% of the children in the dimenhydrinate group versus 47.4% in the placebo group were free of vomiting between randomization and the follow-up visit. Hospital admission rate, fluid intake, general well-being of the children, and potential adverse effects, including the number of diarrhea episodes, were similar in both groups. CONCLUSIONS: Dimenhydrinate reduces the frequency of vomiting in children with mild dehydration; however, the overall benefit is low, because it does not improve oral rehydration and clinical outcome.
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 | 0.009 | 0.011 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 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".