Prospective Assessment of Practice Pattern Variations in the Treatment of Pediatric Gastroenteritis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: We aimed to determine whether significant variations in the use of intravenous rehydration existed among institutions, controlling for clinical variables, and to assess variations in the use of ancillary therapeutic and diagnostic modalities. METHODS: We conducted a prospective cohort study of children 3 to 48 months of age who presented to 11 emergency departments with acute gastroenteritis, using surveys, medical record reviews, and telephone follow-up evaluations. RESULTS: A total of 647 eligible children were enrolled and underwent chart review; 69% (446 of 647 children) participated in the survey, and 89% of survey participants (398 of 446 children) had complete follow-up data. Twenty-three percent (149 of 647 children) received intravenous rehydration (range: 6%-66%; P < .001) and 13% (81 of 647 children) received ondansetron (range: 0%-38%; P < .001). Children who received intravenous rehydration had lower Canadian Triage Acuity Scale scores at presentation (3.1 ± 0.5 vs 3.5 ± 0.5; P < .0001). Regression analysis revealed that the greatest predictor of intravenous rehydration was institution location (odds ratio: 3.0 [95% confidence interval: 1.8-5.0]). Children who received intravenous rehydration at the index visit were more likely to have an unscheduled follow-up health care provider visit (29% vs 19%; P = .05) and to revisit an emergency department (20% vs 9%; P = .002). CONCLUSIONS: In this cohort, intravenous rehydration and ondansetron use varied dramatically. Use of intravenous rehydration at the index visit was significantly associated with the institution providing care and was not associated with a reduction in the need for follow-up care.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".