A Comparison of the Effects and Side Effects of Oral Betahistine with Injectable Promethazine in the Treatment of Acute Peripheral Vertigo in Emergency
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Vertigo is an illusion of rotation that is caused by the asymmetry of neurological function of the right and left vestibular nuclei. The aim of this study was to compare the efficacy and side effects of oral betahistine with injectable promethazine in treatment of acute peripheral vertigo. METHODS: In this double-blind clinical trial study, the patients with acute peripheral vertigo were assigned in the two groups: receiving promethazine intramuscularly at a dose of 25 mg (group A) and receiving 8 mg betahistine tablets (group B) and the severity of their vertigo was evaluated on the visual analog scale (VAS) scoring system. In addition, adverse events in both groups of patients were compared and evaluated. RESULTS: A total of 162 patients (82 subjects in group A) participated in this study. The mean age, gender distribution, intensity and symptoms of vertigo were similar in both groups before the intervention. At 2 and 3 h after the intervention, the score of VAS in patients taking betahistine was significantly higher than promethazine. In addition, the clinical symptoms after taking betahistine were significantly less. Side effects seen in patients taking the promethazine include mainly drowsiness. After taking betahistine, the most common complication was abdominal problems (nausea and vomiting). CONCLUSION: The results of this study show that betahistine is a safe and effective drug in controlling patients with acute vertigo and its impact is more than promethazine.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".