MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3209576954 · doi:10.1093/pch/pxab061.082

101 National Trends in Emergency Department Ondansetron Use and Clinical Outcomes Among Children with Acute Gastroenteritis

2021· article· en· W3209576954 on OpenAlexaff
Sarah Rogers, Stephen B. Freedman, Terry P. Klassen, Brett Burstein

Bibliographic record

VenuePaediatrics & Child Health · 2021
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicRespiratory and Cough-Related Research
Canadian institutionsMcGill University Health CentreUniversity of ManitobaMontreal Children's HospitalUniversity of CalgaryChildren's Hospital Research Institute of ManitobaAlberta Children's Hospital
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineOndansetronEmergency departmentAmbulatoryPediatricsAcute gastroenteritisLogistic regressionConcomitantPopulationVomitingEmergency medicineInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Primary Subject area Emergency Medicine - Paediatric Background Acute gastroenteritis (AGE) is among the most common illnesses for which children are evaluated in the Emergency Department (ED). Among children with AGE, ondansetron has been shown to reduce vomiting, intravenous (IV) fluid administration and hospitalizations when administered in the ED. Objectives To determine whether increasing ondansetron administration is associated with a concomitant decline in IV rehydration and hospitalization among children presenting with AGE in a broad, nationally representative ED sample. Design/Methods This was a cross-sectional analysis of the US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) National Hospital Ambulatory Medical Care Survey (NHAMCS) database from 2006 to 2015. Children < 18 years old with a discharge diagnosis of AGE were included for analysis. Survey weighting procedures were applied to generate population-level estimates and to perform multivariable logistic regression to identify factors associated with ondansetron administration. Results There were an estimated 15.1 million (95% CI 13.5-16.7) visits for AGE during the 10-year study period. AGE visits increased as a proportion of all pediatric ED visits over time (4.6% in 2006, 5.7% in 2015; p-trend=0.013). The mean patient age was 4.7 (95% CI 4.5-5.0) years, and most visits were to non-teaching (86.6%, 95% CI 83.3-89.3%) and non-pediatric (83.4%, 95% CI 78.2-87.5%) hospitals. The proportion of patients receiving ondansetron increased over time (11.8% in 2006, 62.5% in 2015; p-trend < 0 .001), both in the ED (10.6% in 2006, 55.5% in 2015; p-trend < 0 .001) and as outpatient prescriptions (3.3% in 2006, 45.3% in 2015; p-trend < 0 .001). Over the same period, there was no change in hospitalizations (2.9% overall, 95% CI 2.2-3.7%; p-trend=0.144). IV hydration for AGE decreased (31.8% in 2006, 24.9% in 2015; p-trend < 0 .048), as did IV fluid administration across all other pediatric ED visits (10.3% in 2006, 7.8% in 2015; p-trend < 0 .023). After adjustment for patient- and hospital-level factors, the odds ratio for IV rehydration among children with AGE was 0.97 (95% CI 0.92-1.01). Multivariable analysis found younger age (aOR 0.94, 95% CI 1.04-1.09), Medicaid/Medicare insurance (aOR 0.74; 95% CI 0.57-0.97), and presentation to a teaching hospital (aOR 0.74; 95% CI 0.54-0.99) were inversely associated with ondansetron administration. Other antiemetics most commonly used were promethazine (7.4%, 95% CI 5.9-9.2%), metoclopramide (1.8%, 95% CI 1.3-2.5%) and trimethobenzamide (1.5%, 95% CI 1.1-2.1%). Antimotility agents, H2-receptor blockers, and probiotics were infrequently used. Conclusion Both ED and outpatient prescribing of ondansetron for children with AGE increased; however, no concomitant decline was observed in hospitalizations or IV rehydration. Guidelines and quality improvement efforts are needed to target ondansetron administration to children most likely to benefit to minimize adverse events and costs associated with overuse.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.010
Threshold uncertainty score0.647

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.032
GPT teacher head0.361
Teacher spread0.329 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations2
Published2021
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePaediatrics & Child HealthSame topicRespiratory and Cough-Related ResearchFrench-language works237,207