Use of chewing gum in children undergoing an appendectomy: A randomized clinical controlled trial
Bibliographic record
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: Post-operative ileus is a common condition among pediatric patients undergoing appendectomy. We aim to assess the feasibility, safety, and effectiveness of chewing gum to reduce ileus, and decrease time to oral tolerance. METHODS: A randomized trial was conducted in 5-18 year old patients that underwent an appendectomy. Subjects in the intervention group received sugar-free chewing gum within the first 12 h after surgery and control group received the usual therapy. We assessed the acceptability of the intervention, time to pass first flatus, present first bowel movement, and time to tolerate oral intake. RESULTS: A total of 41 patients were recruited, 21 in the intervention group and 20 in the control group. Mean time (SD) to first flatus in the intervention group was 17.18 h (8.18), and 24.37 h (17.53) in the control group (mean difference [MD] of -7.19 h; 95% CI, -15.7 to 1.38). Time to first bowel movement (MD, -4.6 h, 95%CI -18.5 to 9.3), time to tolerate oral intake (MD, 4.17 h; 95%CI -9.2 to 17.5), and length of hospital stay (MD, 6.9 h, 95%CI -19.1 to 33.1) appeared not to be affected by the intervention. Chewing gum was accepted, well tolerated, and without complications. DISCUSSION: The use of chewing gum in children undergoing an appendectomy was safe and well tolerated and might lead to a faster recovery of bowel function, more studies are needed to prove if length of hospital stay and other outcomes are improved.
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 | 0.003 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 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".