Evidence map›Paper›PMID 32077140›Full record

Trial reportBritish journal of clinical pharmacology2020

The effects of meclizine on motion sickness revisited.

Tobias Wibble, Johanna Engström, Luca Verrecchia, Tony Pansell

Open access · bronzeAbstract readRandomized Controlled Trial
In one paragraph

Trial report in British journal of clinical pharmacology, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 11 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
11citing papers in PubMed
1.0field-weighted citation impact, top 24% 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

11 citing papers in PubMed, 18 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. The effects of meclizine on motion sickness revisited.British journal of clinical pharmacology · 2020
    Trial
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Unraveling the Structure of Meclizine Dihydrochloride with MicroED.Advanced science (Weinheim, Baden-Wurttemberg, Germany) · 2024
    Article
  5. Article
  6. Unraveling the Structure of Meclizine Dihydrochloride with MicroED.bioRxiv : the preprint server for biology · 2023
    Article
  7. Article
  8. The Pharmacological Treatment of Pediatric Vertigo.Children (Basel, Switzerland) · 2022
    Review
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. 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

4 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

Tobias WibbleDepartment of Clinical Neuroscience, Division of Ophthalmology and Vision, Marianne Bernadotte Centre, Karolinska Institutet, Stockholm, Sweden.ORCID 0000-0002-4224-6274
Johanna EngströmDepartment of Clinical Neuroscience, Division of Ophthalmology and Vision, Marianne Bernadotte Centre, Karolinska Institutet, Stockholm, Sweden.
Luca VerrecchiaDepartment of Clinical Neuroscience, Division of Ophthalmology and Vision, Marianne Bernadotte Centre, Karolinska Institutet, Stockholm, Sweden.
Tony PansellDepartment of Clinical Neuroscience, Division of Ophthalmology and Vision, Marianne Bernadotte Centre, Karolinska Institutet, Stockholm, Sweden.
Karolinska Institutet · SEKarolinska University Hospital · SE

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

aimsAntihistamines make up the first line of treatments against motion-sickness. Still, their efficacy and specific mechanism have come into question. The aim of this study was to investigate the effect of meclizine on motion-sensitivity.

methodsThis study was carried out as a triple-blinded randomized trial involving 12 healthy subjects who were exposed to (i) vestibular (VES), (ii) visual (VIS) and (iii) visual-vestibular (VIS+VES) stimulations in the roll plane. Subjects were divided into 2 groups by stratified randomization, receiving either meclizine or a placebo. Stimulations were carried out before, and after, drug administration, presented at 2 intensity levels of 14 and 28°/s

resultsSusceptibility had no effect on intervention outcome. Despite large variations, repeated ANOVAS showed that meclizine led to a relative increase in torsional velocity compared to placebo during vestibular stimulation for both intensities: 2.36 (7.65) from -0.01 (4.17) during low intensities, and 2.61 (6.67) from -3.49 (4.76) during high. The visual-vestibular stimuli yielded a decrease during low acceleration, -0.40 (3.87) from 3.75 (5.62), but increased during high, 3.88 (6.51) from -3.88 (8.55).

conclusionsMeclizine had an inhibitory effect on eye movement reflexes for low accelerations during VIS+VES trials. This indicates that meclizine may not primarily work through sensory-specific mechanisms, but rather on a more central level. Practically, meclizine shows promise in targeting motion-sickness evoked by everyday activities, but its use may be counterproductive in high-acceleration environments.

Indexed as

MeclizineMotion SicknessEye MovementsHumansMeclizineneuroscience < neuropharmacologyophthalmologytherapeutics < clinical pharmacology

Identifiers

PMID32077140
PMCPMC7373708
OpenAlexW3009025625

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
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.