ArticleEuropean journal of medical research2025
Comparative analysis of ingestion assessment methods in paraquat-poisoned patients.
Article in European journal of medical research, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Severe paraquat poisoning: a 5-year follow-up of a survivor.World journal of emergency medicine · 2026Article
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.
Funding
Abstract
objectiveThis study investigated clinical methodologies for estimating ingested pesticide volume and evaluated their accuracy in acute oral poisonings.
methodsThe evaluation of poison ingestion was divided into accurate evaluation, empirical evaluation, and simulated ingestion evaluation. Statistical analysis was conducted using the data of 60 cases of acute oral paraquat poisonings (PQP) in our hospital from the aspect of empirical evaluation, simulated ingestion evaluation, blood toxicant test, and prognosis. Moreover, the measurements of oral capacity and simulated dose were compared in the general population based on sex, age, height, weight, and season.
resultsA significant difference was observed between the amount based on empirical evaluation and that based on simulated ingestion evaluation (P < 0.05). In simulated ingestion evaluation, the amount in males was significantly higher than that in females, and the amount in males was correlated with blood toxicant concentration and prognosis. No statistical difference in oral capacity was observed in the general population based on age, season, and body weight (P > 0.05). Both the maximum and normal mouthfuls in males were statistically different from those in females (P < 0.05, P < 0.05). A statistical difference in oral capacity (maximum mouthful and normal mouthful) was observed among various height groups (P < 0.01, P < 0.05), indicating that the higher the height, the larger the oral capacity.
conclusionsOnly 7.69% of the cases were allowed for an accurate dose evaluation. The ingested poison dose based on empirical and simulated ingestion evaluation were correlated with blood toxicant concentrations and prognosis in patients with PQP. Factors, such as sex and height, should be considered by physicians in empirical evaluation. It is still a great clinical challenge to accurately evaluate the ingested dose of liquid pesticides.
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.