A randomized trial of ketorolac and metoclopramide for migraine in the emergency department
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: The objective of this study was to assess the efficacy and safety of a common monotherapy (intravenous [iv] metoclopramide) compared to a combination strategy (adding iv ketorolac to metoclopramide) in children presenting for acute treatment of migraine headache in the emergency department (ED). METHODS: Children aged 5-17 years presenting for acute treatment of migraine headache at two pediatric EDs were enrolled in a double-blind randomized controlled trial. Children were randomly assigned to receive iv metoclopramide 0.2 mg/kg) and placebo or iv metoclopramide (0.2 mg/kg) and ketorolac (0.5 mg/kg). The primary outcome was a mean change in pain from baseline to 120 min via a 100 mm Visual Analog Scale (VAS). Follow-up was conducted 24-h after discharge. RESULTS: Fifty-three children were randomized and included in the analysis (monotherapy group [metoclopramide + placebo], n = 27; and ketorolac group [metoclopramide + ketorolac], n = 26); mean age was 12.9 ± 2.7 years and baseline pain severity on VAS was 67.3 ± 2.7 mm. The mean change in pain intensity at 120 min was -44 mm (SD: 24; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 32-57) for the monotherapy group and -36 mm (SD: 24; 95% CI: 23-49) for the ketorolac group, with a mean difference between groups of 8 mm (95% CI: -9-25; p = 0.360). Seventeen percent of the children (9/53; 95% CI: 7-27%) were pain-free at discharge. There was no difference in headache recurrence or adverse events between groups. CONCLUSIONS: The approach of combining iv metoclopramide with ketorolac failed to improve pain scores in children presenting for acute treatment of migraine headache in the ED compared to metoclopramide monotherapy. Most patients were discharged with residual pain. Further comparative studies are needed to test alternative ED treatments for migraine in children or adolescents.
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 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.006 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.008 | 0.001 |
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".