SAEM GRACE: Dopamine antagonists and topical capsaicin for cannabis hyperemesis syndrome in the emergency department: A systematic review of direct evidence
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Adults with cannabis hyperemesis syndrome (CHS) are increasingly presenting to the emergency department (ED), and this systematic review will evaluate the direct evidence on the effectiveness of capsaicin and dopamine antagonists in its clinical management. METHODS: A bibliographic search was conducted to address the following population-intervention-control-outcome (PICO) question: (P) adults >18 years old with a diagnosis of acute CHS presenting to the ED; (I) dopamine antagonists (e.g., haloperidol, droperidol) and topical capsaicin; (C) usual care or no active comparator; and (O) symptoms improvement/resolution in ED, ED length of stay, admission rate, ED recidivism, need for rescue medication, and adverse events. This systematic review was conducted in accordance with PRISMA reporting recommendations. RESULTS: From 53 potentially relevant articles, seven articles were included: five observational studies and two randomized controlled trials, including a total of 492 patients. Five of these studies evaluated the efficacy of capsaicin cream (n = 386), and two examined dopamine antagonists (haloperidol, droperidol; n = 106). There was mixed evidence for the efficacy of capsaicin for reducing nausea and emesis. Both studies evaluating dopamine antagonists detected clinical benefit to usual care or no active comparator. CONCLUSIONS: There is limited direct evidence on the efficacy of dopamine antagonists or capsaicin for treating CHS in the ED. Current evidence is mixed for capsaicin and potentially beneficial for dopamine antagonists. Because of the small number of studies, small number of participants, lack of standardization of treatment administration, and risk of bias of the included studies, methodologically rigorous trials on both types of intervention are needed to directly inform ED management of CHS.
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 | 0.010 | 0.038 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.012 | 0.010 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.015 | 0.011 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.010 | 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".