Comparison of Oral Versus Normal and High-Dose Rectal Acetaminophen in the Treatment of Febrile Children
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: To compare the defervescent effect of high-dose rectal suppository acetaminophen with the recommended oral and rectal dosages and to evaluate acceptability of rectal acetaminophen. METHODS: A randomized, controlled trial was performed in 70 patients aged 6 months to 6 years with fever > or =39 degrees C. Group A received rectal acetaminophen 15 mg/kg, group B received rectal acetaminophen 30 mg/kg, and group C received oral acetaminophen 15 mg/kg. Primary outcome was maximal change in temperature during the 3-hour study period after initial treatment. RESULTS: There were 24 patients in group A, 23 in group B, and 23 in group C. There was no significant difference in temperature change between the groups during the 3 hours or in the maximum drop in temperature or final temperature. Visual analog scores for satisfaction of parents did not reveal any significant differences between the oral and rectal routes. CONCLUSIONS: There was no difference between the temperature decrement in patients treated with 15 mg/kg oral acetaminophen and the same or double dose rectally. Thus, there seems to be no evidence to support the use of higher doses of rectal acetaminophen for the treatment of fever in children. The rectal route proved to be as acceptable as the oral among parents.
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 | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".