MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4410460933 · doi:10.7759/cureus.84289

First Aid Treatment of Jellyfish Stings: A Systematic Review

2025· review· en· W4410460933 on OpenAlexaff
Jen Heng Pek, Swee Han Lim, Therese Djärv, Matthew J. Douma, Michelle Welsford, Nathan P. Charlton

Bibliographic record

VenueCureus · 2025
Typereview
Languageen
FieldEarth and Planetary Sciences
TopicMarine Invertebrate Physiology and Ecology
Canadian institutionsMcMaster UniversityHamilton Health SciencesUniversity of Alberta
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineJellyfishDermatologyTraditional medicineFishery

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Jellyfish stings and envenomation can cause local and systemic symptoms with varying severity and duration. The goals of first aid include interventions to relieve symptoms, thus reducing morbidity and mortality. In this systematic review performed on behalf of the International Liaison Committee on Resuscitation (ILCOR) First Aid Task Force, we aimed to answer the question: Among adults and children with a suspected jellyfish sting, what is the effect of first aid intervention as treatment, compared to other treatment or no treatment, on pain, time to pain relief, survival, need for hospitalization, and adverse outcomes or complications? A search for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and non-randomized studies was performed on Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, Medical Literature Analysis and Retrieval System Online (MEDLINE), Excerpta Medica database (Embase), and Web of Science until 31 March 2025. This systematic review was conducted in accordance with the Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions, and reporting adhered to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) checklist. There were seven RCTs or quasi-RCTs and three non-randomized studies. There was very low confidence in the estimate of effects for the outcomes evaluated due to the risk of bias and heterogeneity. Treatment with topical vinegar was the most frequently evaluated intervention (seven studies), followed by heat therapy (six studies). All studies reported on the critical outcome of any pain relief and intensity of pain, with a wide range of time to pain relief of up to 24 hours. Adverse outcomes after treatment were evaluated in six studies and included pain, erythema, burns, and difficulty with application. Treatments that may relieve symptoms of jellyfish stings include seawater, heat therapy, cold packs, lidocaine, benzocaine, Adolph's meat tenderizer, vinegar, commercial products (e.g., Stingose or Sting-Aid), and sodium bicarbonate. There were very few studies and a significant risk of bias and heterogeneity, leading to very low-quality evidence on first aid treatment for jellyfish stings. Seawater would be recommended, given its availability at no cost in the coastal region.

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)0.005
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.018
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Systematic review · Consensus signal: Systematic review
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.009
Threshold uncertainty score0.027

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0050.018
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0090.010
Bibliometrics0.0050.005
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.002
Open science0.0020.001
Research integrity0.0020.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0060.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.034
GPT teacher head0.281
Teacher spread0.247 · 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 designSystematic review
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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

Citations3
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCureusSame topicMarine Invertebrate Physiology and EcologyFrench-language works237,207