P1128 RANDOMIZED, DOUBLE-BLIND CLINICAL TRIAL OF A LACTOSE-FREE AND A LACTOSE-CONTAINING FORMULA IN DIETARY MANAGEMENT OF ACUTE CHILDHOOD DIARRHEA

2004 ◽  
Vol 39 (Supplement 1) ◽  
pp. S485 ◽  
Author(s):  
N Simakachorn ◽  
Y Tongpenyai ◽  
O Tongtan ◽  
W Varavithya
PEDIATRICS ◽  
1994 ◽  
Vol 93 (5) ◽  
pp. 719-725 ◽  
Author(s):  
Jennifer Jacobs ◽  
Stephen S. Gloyd ◽  
James L. Gale ◽  
L. Margarita Jiménez ◽  
Dean Crothers

Objective. Acute diarrhea is the leading cause of pediatric morbidity and mortality worldwide. Oral rehydration treatment can prevent death from dehydration, but does not reduce the duration of individual episodes. Homeopathic treatment for acute diarrhea is used in many parts of the world. This study was performed to determine whether homeopathy is useful in the treatment of acute childhood diarrhea. Methodology. A randomized double-blind clinical trial comparing homeopathic medicine with placebo in the treatment of acute childhood diarrhea was conducted in León, Nicaragua, in July 1991. Eighty-one children aged 6 months to 5 years of age were included in the study. An individualized homeopathic medicine was prescribed for each child and daily follow-up was performed for 5 days. Standard treatment with oral rehydration treatment was also given. Results. The treatment group had a statistically significant (P < .05) decrease in duration of diarrhea, defined as the number of days until there were less than three unformed stools daily for 2 consecutive days. There was also a significant difference (P < .05) in the number of stools per day between the two groups after 72 hours of treatment. Conclusions. The statistically significant decrease in the duration of diarrhea in the treatment group suggests that homeopathic treatment might be useful in acute childhood diarrhea. Further study of this treatment deserves consideration.


2017 ◽  
Vol 11 (1) ◽  
pp. 101-106
Author(s):  
Mohammadreza Maleki Verki ◽  
Kambiz Masoumi ◽  
Hassan Motamed ◽  
Meisam Moezi ◽  
Arash Forouzan ◽  
...  

Background:More than half of the patients attending emergency centers need analgesics. Injectable analgesics are currently the most common pain control strategy, but entail complications. Fentanyl is one of the most commonly used pain-relief opiates available in various forms.Objective:The present study aims to compare analgesic effects of nebulized against intravenous fentanyl for controlling pain due to limb fracture.Method:The present double-blind clinical trial recruited 213 patients presenting with fractured limbs to emergency departments. The first group of patients received 1 micg/kg of intravenous fentanyl citrate from a solution of 50 micg/ml and 5 ml of normal saline in nebulized form (group A), and the second group intravenously received 5 ml of normal saline and 4 micg/kg of 50 micg/ml solution of fentanyl citrate in nebulized form, whose volume reached 5 ml with the addition of normal saline (group B). Then, pain level was frequently measured and compared in the two groups for 20 minutes.Results:The results obtained showed reduced pain level in both the groups. However, point-by-point comparison of pain in the two groups revealed significantly greater pain reduction in intravenous fentanyl group (P<0.001). The need for adjuvant pain relief medication was 8.3% in intravenous fentanyl group and 24% in nebulized fentanyl group, with a significant difference between the two groups (P=0.002).Conclusion:According to the results, although nebulized fentanyl is effective in controlling pain due to limb fracture, it was less effective than intravenous type, and unable to control pain in many cases.


2021 ◽  
Vol 9 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Sara Assecondi ◽  
Rong Hu ◽  
Gail Eskes ◽  
Michelle Read ◽  
Chris Griffiths ◽  
...  

Following publication of the original article [1], the authors flagged that the article had published with the Acknowledgements erroneously excluded from the declarations at the end of the article.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document