Oral Dimenhydrinate Versus Placebo in Children With Gastroenteritis: A Randomized Controlled Trial
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the efficacy and safety of oral dimenhydrinate in the treatment of acute gastroenteritis. METHODS: This was a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial conducted in the emergency department of a pediatric university-affiliated center. Children 1 to 12 years old who presented to the emergency department with at least 5 episodes of vomiting in the previous 12 hours and diagnosed with acute gastroenteritis were block-randomized to receive oral dimenhydrinate (1 mg/kg; maximum: 50 mg) every 6 hours for 4 doses or placebo for 4 doses. The primary outcome measure was treatment failure as defined by the occurrence of ≥ 2 episodes of vomiting in the 24 hours after administration of the first dose of the study medication. RESULTS: During the study period, 209 patients met inclusion criteria, but 50 refused to participate and 7 were missed. Eight participants were lost to follow-up, and 144 were thus included in the primary analysis. Of these patients, 74 were randomized to receive dimenhydrinate and 70 placebo. The proportions of patients showing failure of treatment were similar for both treatment groups: dimenhydrinate, 31% (23 of 74); placebo, 29% (20 of 70) (difference: 0.02 [95% confidence interval: -0.12 to 0.17]). There were no differences between the 2 groups in rates of intravenous cathether insertion, mean number of episodes of vomiting or diarrhea, abdominal pain, nausea, duration of symptoms, revisit rates, or parental absenteeism. The proportions of adverse effects were similar in both groups (53% vs 54%). CONCLUSIONS: The prescription of oral dimenhydrinate did not significantly decrease the frequency of vomiting in children with acute gastroenteritis compared with placebo.
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 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.005 | 0.002 |
| 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 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.008 | 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".