Isopropyl alcohol inhalation for the treatment of nausea in adult emergency department patients: a systematic review and meta-analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Nausea and vomiting is a common ED chief complaint. However, randomised trials comparing antiemetic agents to placebo have not demonstrated superiority. This systematic review investigates the efficacy of inhaled isopropyl alcohol (IPA) compared with usual care or placebo in adults presenting to the ED with nausea and vomiting. METHODS: We searched MEDLINE, Embase, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, other relevant trial registries, journals, and conference proceedings up to September 2022. Randomised controlled trials using IPA to treat adult ED patients with nausea and vomiting were included. The primary outcome was change in severity of nausea, measured by a validated scale. A secondary outcome was vomiting during the ED stay. We used a random-effects model for the meta-analysis, and assessed certainty of evidence using the Grades of Recommendation, Assessment, Development and Evaluation system. RESULTS: Two trials comparing inhaled IPA to saline placebo and including a total of 195 patients were pooled for meta-analysis of the primary outcome. A third study comparing a group receiving inhaled IPA and oral ondansetron to another group receiving inhaled saline placebo and oral ondansetron did not qualify for the original registered protocol, but was included in a secondary analysis. All studies were judged to be at low or unclear risk of bias. The pooled mean difference for the primary analysis was a reduction in reported nausea of 2.18 on a 0-10 scale (95% confidence interval (CI) 1.60 to 2.76), favouring IPA over placebo, where the minimum clinically significant difference was defined as 1.5. The evidence level was graded as moderate, due to imprecision from low patient numbers. Only the study included in the secondary analysis assessed the secondary outcome of vomiting, and did not find a difference between intervention and control. CONCLUSION: This review suggests that IPA likely has a modest effect in reducing nausea in adult ED patients, compared with placebo. Larger multicentre trials are needed, as the evidence is limited by few trials and patients. PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER: CRD42022299815.
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 | 0.011 | 0.024 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.020 | 0.037 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.006 | 0.006 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".