Effect of point 6 acupressure on chemotherapy associated nausea and vomiting among adolescents with cancer
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: Despite the development of effective antiemetic drugs, nausea and vomiting continue to be the primaryside effects associated with the usage of chemotherapy among adolescent with cancer. The aim of this study was to examine the effect of using acupressure Point 6 (P6) on reducing nausea and vomiting in cancer adolescents undergoing chemotherapy. Methods: A quasi experimental study was conducted at pediatric inpatients and outpatient departments of Mansoura oncology center. 60 cancer adolescents receiving chemotherapy was selected using a convenience sample and divided equally into experimental group who receive antiemetic plus an acupressure P6 intervention and control group who receive antiemetic only. The tool designed for the study comprised of: sciodemographical data and clinical data from medical record. Rhodes Index of Nausea and Vomiting scale was used to measure the severity, frequency and duration of nausea, vomiting and retching. Results: There was a decrease in the total mean score of nausea, vomiting and retching in study group compared to control group with a statistical significant difference between both group regarding its frequency, severity and duration. Also more than one third of the study group (40%) view that acupressure P6 is moderately effective, 33.3% of them show it effective in using while only 26.7% stated that it is slightly effective. Conclusions: The results of this study showed that acupressure has a significant role in the reduction of nausea, vomiting and retching associated with chemotherapy among adolescents with cancer, and use of this non-pharmacologic technique for oncology nurses is suggested.
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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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) | 0.001 | 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".