MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W4307055594 · doi:10.1093/pch/pxac100.068

69 Triage Administration of Ondansetron for Gastroenteritis in children; a randomized controlled trial

2022· article· en· W4307055594 on OpenAlexaff
Olivia Weill, Mélanie Labrosse, Arielle Lévy, Marie‐Pier Desjardins, Evelyne D Trottier

Bibliographic record

VenuePaediatrics & Child Health · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicPneumonia and Respiratory Infections
Canadian institutionsUniversité de MontréalCentre Hospitalier Universitaire Sainte-Justine
Fundersnot available
KeywordsOndansetronMedicineVomitingTriageEmergency departmentRandomized controlled trialPediatricsPlaceboEmergency medicineAnesthesiaSurgeryPsychiatry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Background Acute gastroenteritis is an important reason for emergency department (ED) consultation in children. Ondansetron is reported to be effective in reducing vomiting in children with gastroenteritis, leading to less intravenous rehydration and hospital admission. Objectives The aim of this study was to assess the effectiveness of triage nurse-initiated administration of ondansetron for children with suspected gastroenteritis in the paediatric ED to reduce the number of patients requiring observation following the first physician assessment. Design/Methods This was a randomized controlled trial performed in a tertiary care paediatric ED. All children 6 months to 17 years old who presented to the ED with at least four episodes of non-billous, non-bloody vomiting in the previous 24 hours and the last vomiting occurring within the previous 2h were eligible. The intervention consisted of administration of a liquid formulation of an adapted to weight dose of ondansetron at triage compared to a color- and taste-matched placebo. The primary outcome was the number of patients requiring observation after the first physician’s evaluation. Secondary outcomes were the number of episodes of vomiting after receiving the intervention, length of stay in the ED, comfort, and the proportion of children who returned for a medical visit within 48 hours. A sample size of 248 participants was initially identified to have a power of 90% to find a 20% difference in the proportion of children needing observation following physician evaluation. Results Because of multiple external factors, including the COVID-19 pandemic, recruitment was stopped before the expected sample size was reached. A total of 91 patients were included and randomized to receive ondansetron (n= 44) or a placebo (n=47) just after triage. The baseline characteristics of the participants was similar between the two groups. A total of 40 (45%) participants were discharged immediately after the first evaluation by the treating physician. This was similar for both groups 44% vs. 45%; (95% CI for the difference -20 to 19%). There was no difference between the two groups for the total length of stay (median 232 vs. 227 minutes; p= 0.677) and for the length of stay after being seen by the physician (72 vs. 68 minutes; p=0.821). There was no statistical difference between the two groups in the number of vomiting episodes (difference of 15%; 95% CI -2, 31), and proportion of participants needing a rescue medication (difference: 19%; 95%CI:-0.6 to 36%) or an intravenous rehydration (difference: 8; 95%CI:-6, 22). Conclusion This study failed to demonstrate any benefit in using ondansetron at triage for children with presumed gastroenteritis.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.005
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Randomized trial · Consensus signal: Randomized trial
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.008
Threshold uncertainty score0.027

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.005
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0050.003
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0030.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0080.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.010
GPT teacher head0.292
Teacher spread0.282 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designRandomized trial
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

Citations1
Published2022
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePaediatrics & Child Health→Same topicPneumonia and Respiratory Infections→French-language works237,207→