Evidence map›Paper›PMID 23556549›Full record

Trial reportBMC pharmacology & toxicology2013

Scottish and Newcastle antiemetic pre-treatment for paracetamol poisoning study (SNAP).

H K Ruben Thanacoody, Alasdair Gray, James W Dear, Judy Coyle, Euan A Sandilands, David J Webb, Steff Lewis, Michael Eddleston, Simon Hl Thomas, D Nicholas Bateman

Open access · goldAbstract readMulticenter StudyRandomized Controlled Trial
In one paragraph

Trial report in BMC pharmacology & toxicology, 2013. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 15 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
15citing papers in PubMed
7.4field-weighted citation impact, top 3% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

15 citing papers in PubMed, 47 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Trial
  2. Article
  3. Review
  4. Intravenous Acetylcysteine: What Should Replace the Prescott "Three-Bag" Protocol?Journal of medical toxicology : official journal of the American College of Medical Toxicology · 2024
    Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Review
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Evidence for the changing regimens of acetylcysteine.British journal of clinical pharmacology · 2016
    Review
  12. Article
  13. Paracetamol poisoning: beyond the nomogram.British journal of clinical pharmacology · 2015
    Review
  14. Article
  15. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

10 authors at 4 institutions in 1 country.

H K Ruben ThanacoodyNPIS Edinburgh, Royal Infirmary of Edinburgh, Edinburgh, UK.
Alasdair Gray
James W Dear
Judy Coyle
Euan A Sandilands
David J Webb
Steff Lewis
Michael Eddleston
Simon Hl Thomas
D Nicholas Bateman
Edinburgh Royal Infirmary · GBUniversity of Edinburgh · GBNewcastle University · GBRoyal Victoria Infirmary · GB

Funding

Chief Scientist Office CZB/4/722Chief Scientist Office SCD/05Medical Research Council G0800803
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundParacetamol (acetaminophen) poisoning remains the commonest cause of acute liver injury in Europe and North America. The intravenous (IV) N-acetylcysteine (NAC) regimen introduced in the 1970s has continued effectively unchanged. This involves 3 different infusion regimens (dose and time) lasting over 20 hours. The same weight-related dose of NAC is used irrespective of paracetamol dose. Complications include frequent nausea and vomiting, anaphylactoid reactions and dosing errors. We designed a randomised controlled study investigating the efficacy of antiemetic pre-treatment (ondansetron) using standard NAC and a modified, shorter, regimen. METHODS/

designWe designed a double-blind trial using a 2 × 2 factorial design involving four parallel groups. Pre-treatment with ondansetron 4 mg IV was compared against placebo on nausea and vomiting following the standard (20.25 h) regimen, or a novel 12 h NAC regimen in paracetamol poisoning. Each delivered 300 mg/kg bodyweight NAC. Randomisation was stratified on: paracetamol dose, perceived risk factors, and time to presentation. The primary outcome was the incidence of nausea and vomiting following NAC. In addition the frequency of anaphylactoid reactions and end of treatment liver function documented. Where clinically necessary further doses of NAC were administered as per standard UK protocols at the end of the first antidote course. DISCUSSION: This study is primarily designed to test the efficacy of prophylactic anti-emetic therapy with ondansetron, but is the first attempt to formally examine new methods of administering IV NAC in paracetamol overdose. We anticipate, from volunteer studies, that nausea and vomiting will be less frequent with the new NAC regimen. In addition as anaphylactoid response appears related to plasma concentrations of both NAC and paracetamol anaphylactoid reactions should be less likely. This study is not powered to assess the relative efficacy of the two NAC regimens, however it will give useful information to power future studies. As the first formal randomised clinical trial in this patient group in over 30 years this study will also provide information to support further studies in patients in paracetamol overdose, particularly, when linked with modern novel biomarkers of liver damage, patients at different toxicity risk.

trial registrationEudraCT number 2009-017800-10, ClinicalTrials.gov IdentifierNCT01050270.

Indexed as

AcetaminophenAcetylcysteineAntiemeticsAnti-Inflammatory Agents, Non-SteroidalDouble-Blind MethodHumansOndansetronScotlandVomitingAcetaminophenAcetylcysteineAntiemeticsAnti-Inflammatory Agents, Non-SteroidalOndansetron

Identifiers

PMID23556549
PMCPMC3626543
OpenAlexW2121633401

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.