A double‐blind randomized controlled trial of management of recurrent nosebleeds in children
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: To establish whether a treatment regimen of silver nitrate cautery and 4 weeks of antiseptic nasal cream is superior to antiseptic cream treatment alone in the management of pediatric epistaxis. STUDY DESIGN: Double-blind randomized controlled trial. SUBJECTS AND METHODS: Children with epistaxis and visible anterior septal vessels were invited to participate. Patients were randomized to receive treatment or control. Treatment patients received silver nitrate cautery, followed by antiseptic cream for 4 weeks. Control patients received sham cautery followed by antiseptic cream for 4 weeks. RESULTS: A total of 109 patients were randomized and results were available for 93 (85%). Of those receiving cautery, 21 (45.7%) of 46 had no bleeding in the 4 weeks before follow-up. Of those receiving only antiseptic cream 14 (29.8%) of 47 had no bleeding. (chi(2) = 2.49; P = 0.114). More children in the active treatment group had an improvement in their symptoms compared with controls (42 of 46; 91.3%) in the treatment group vs 33 of 47 (70.2%) controls (chi(2) = 6.626; P = 0.01; relative risk reduction = 71 percent, number needed to treat = 4.7). CONCLUSION: When using subjective improvement in symptoms as the outcome measure, silver nitrate cautery with antiseptic cream twice daily for 4 weeks appears to give a small but statistically significant benefit when compared to antiseptic cream alone.
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 | 0.006 |
| 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 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.009 | 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".