ArticleEuropean journal of clinical pharmacology2014
Reported ingested dose of paracetamol as a predictor of risk following paracetamol overdose.
Article in European journal of clinical pharmacology, 2014. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.
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.
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.
Who cites it
4 citing papers in PubMed, 8 citations in OpenAlex.
- Sensitivity of dose-estimations for acute acetaminophen overdose in predicting hepatotoxicity risk using the Rumack-Matthew Nomogram.Pharmacology research & perspectives · 2022Article
- Evaluation of cut-off values in acute paracetamol overdose following the United Kingdom guidelines.BMC pharmacology & toxicology · 2022Article
- Dental pain management - a cause of significant morbidity due to paracetamol overdose.British dental journal · 2018Article
- A novel approach for estimating ingested dose associated with paracetamol overdose.British journal of clinical pharmacology · 2016Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors at 3 institutions in 3 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeTo evaluate reported ingested dose of paracetamol as a risk assessment tool in acute paracetamol overdose.
methodsData was retrospectively obtained from a clinical toxicology database linked to one Australian and two United Kingdom hospitals. Plasma paracetamol concentrations (PPCs) of adult patients presenting with acute single ingestion, non-staggered paracetamol deliberate self-poisoning between 2006 and 2012 were recorded and plotted on a treatment nomogram to determine accuracy of reported dose ingested as an indicator for antidotal treatment. PPC plotted on a treatment nomogram with a line intersecting a 4-h concentration of 100 mg/L [667 μmol/L] was considered an indication for antidotal treatment in the UK; the corresponding Australasian population utilised a line intersecting 150 mg/L [1000 μmol/L].
resultsOf 1246 patients, 65.7 % were female and 88 % were from the UK. Fifty-two percent of patients reporting ingestion of ≥8 g paracetamol had a PPC above the 100 mg/L treatment line; PPV 52 % [95 % confidence interval (CI) 49 %, 55 %], sensitivity 81 % [95 %CI 78 %, 85 %]. Forty-four of patients reporting percent ingestion of ≥10 g had a PPC above the 150 mg/L treatment line; PPV 44 % [95 % CI 41 %, 49 %], sensitivity 85 % [95 % CI 78 %, 89 %], 72 % of patients reporting ingestion of ≥16 g had a PPC above the 100 mg/L treatment line; PPV 72 % [95% CI 67 %, 77 %], sensitivity 50 % [95 % CI 45 %, 54 %]. Overall, there was moderate correlation (R = 0.58) between reported paracetamol dose ingested and extrapolated 4-h PPC.
conclusionsThere is a positive correlation between reported ingested dose of paracetamol and subsequent chance of a PPC being above a defined treatment line; however, ingested dose of paracetamol alone is a poor risk assessment tool in accurately determining need for treatment with an antidote.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.