Management of Acetaminophen Poisoning in the US and Canada
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Importance: The US and Canada currently have no formal published nationwide guidelines for specialists in poison information or emergency departments for the management of acetaminophen poisoning, resulting in significant variability in management. Objective: To develop consensus guidelines for the management of acetaminophen poisoning in the US and Canada. Evidence Review: Four clinical toxicology societies (America's Poison Centers, American Academy of Clinical Toxicology, American College of Medical Toxicology, and Canadian Association of Poison Control Centers) selected participants (n = 21). Led by a nonvoting chairperson using a modified Delphi method, the panel created a decision framework and determined the appropriate clinical management of a patient with acetaminophen poisoning. Unique to this effort was the collection of guidelines from most poison centers in addition to systematic collection and review of the medical literature. Comments from review by external organizations were incorporated before the guideline was finalized. The project began in March 2021 and ended in March 2023. Findings: The search retrieved 84 guidelines and 278 publications. The panel developed guidelines for emergency department management of single or repeated ingestion of acetaminophen. In addition, the panel addressed extended-release formulation, high-risk ingestion, coingestion of anticholinergics or opioids, age younger than 6 years, pregnancy, weight greater than 100 kg, and intravenous acetaminophen use. Differences from current US practice include defining acute ingestion as an ingestion presentation from 4 to 24 hours after overdose was initiated. A revised form of the Rumack-Matthew nomogram was developed. The term massive ingestion was replaced with the term high-risk ingestion and denoted by a specific nomogram line. Other recommendations include specific criteria for emergency department triage, laboratory evaluation and monitoring parameters, defining the role of gastrointestinal decontamination, detailed management of acetylcysteine treatment, associated adverse effects, and stopping criteria for acetylcysteine treatment, as well as criteria for consultation with a clinical toxicologist. Finally, specific treatment considerations, including acetylcysteine dosing, fomepizole administration, and considerations for extracorporeal elimination and transplant evaluation, were addressed. Conclusions and Relevance: This qualitative study provides a consensus statement on consistent evidence-based recommendations for medical, pharmacy, and nursing education and practice to optimize care of patients with acetaminophen poisoning.
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 | 0.005 | 0.021 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.008 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".