Effectiveness of combined haloperidol and dexamethasone versus dexamethasone only for postoperative nausea and vomiting in high-risk day surgery patients: a randomized blinded trial
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE: To examine whether prophylactic use of haloperidol in addition to dexamethasone decreased the incidence of postoperative nausea and vomiting in high-risk patients undergoing ambulatory surgery. METHODS: One hundred and sixty nonsmoking women aged between 18 and 50 years receiving a standardized anaesthesia, which included dexamethasone 8 mg at the beginning of cosmetic or ENT surgery, were enrolled. They were randomized to receive either 1.5 mg of haloperidol (dexamethasone-haloperidol group) or placebo (dexamethasone-placebo group) 30 min before the end of surgery. The incidence of postoperative nausea and vomiting was assessed by a blinded investigator at 30 min, 2, 6, and 24 h in the postoperative period. Analgesic requirements, eye opening time, and sedation were also assessed. RESULTS: We found no differences in nausea or vomiting at 30 min and 2 h postoperatively; we found no difference in the incidence of nausea between dexamethasone-haloperidol and dexamethasone-placebo groups at 6 h [relative risk (RR) 0.82, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.56-1.25] and 24 h (RR 0.79, 95% CI 0.56-1.1), but the cumulative incidence of vomiting in the dexamethasone-haloperidol group was significantly lower at 6 h (RR 0.57, 95% CI 0.39-1.05) and 24 h (RR 0.54, 95% CI 0.31-0.86). We found no differences in eye opening time and Ramsay score higher than 2 at 30 min and 2 h after surgery. CONCLUSION: To combine 1.5 mg of haloperidol and 8 mg of dexamethasone reduces the cumulative incidence of postoperative vomiting at 6 and 24 h postoperatively in day patients at high risk of postoperative nausea and vomiting.
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 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.007 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 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".