Case–Control Study Comparing Droperidol Plus Diphenhydramine with Conventional Treatment in Hyperemesis Gravidarum
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: In 1998, a protocol consisting of droperidol/diphenhydramine combination was established at Hospital Sainte-Justine to treat hyperemesis gravidarum. Objective: To compare the efficacy of the droperidol/diphenhydramine combination with other conventional treatments used before implementation of this protocol in the treatment of hyperemesis gravidarum (HG). Methods: A nonrandomized, prospective study was conducted using a historical control of 54 patients receiving conventional antiemetic treatment and 2 study groups: 67 patients treated with intravenous droperidol 1 mg/h plus diphenhydramine 25–50 mg every 6 hours and 34 patients treated with intravenous droperidol 0.5 mg/h plus diphenhydramine 50 mg every 6 hours. Study outcomes included length of hospital stay, readmission rate, intensity of nausea and vomiting according to the National Cancer Institute scoring system, maternal body weight variation, pregnancy outcomes, and adverse effects. Study Site: Sainte-Justine Hospital in Montréal, Québec, a tertiary care university teaching hospital affiliated with the University of Montréal. Study Population: Hospitalized patients diagnosed with HG. Results: The 3 groups, comparable in terms of maternal characteristics, showed no difference in terms of length of stay. The readmission rate was lower in the group that received droperidol 1 mg/h compared with the other 2 groups. Overall, droperidol use was associated with a reduction in daily nausea and vomiting scores (p < 0.001). The most common adverse effects were xerostomia, drowsiness, constipation, and hypotension. Extrapyramidal reactions were observed in 20% of the droperidol patients. Birth defects occurred in 2.4% of the control group and 7.5% of the study group (p = 0.52). Drugs could be excluded as causal agents for the majority of malformations in 5 of 7 cases. Conclusions: Droperidol/diphenhydramine is an effective alternative for treatment of refractory HG. A large, prospective, randomized study would be required to confirm the efficacy of this treatment as well as maternal and fetal safety.
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) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 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".