• 文献检索
  • 文档翻译
  • 深度研究
  • 学术资讯
  • Suppr Zotero 插件Zotero 插件
  • 邀请有礼
  • 套餐&价格
  • 历史记录
应用&插件
Suppr Zotero 插件Zotero 插件浏览器插件Mac 客户端Windows 客户端微信小程序
定价
高级版会员购买积分包购买API积分包
服务
文献检索文档翻译深度研究API 文档MCP 服务
关于我们
关于 Suppr公司介绍联系我们用户协议隐私条款
关注我们

Suppr 超能文献

核心技术专利:CN118964589B侵权必究
粤ICP备2023148730 号-1Suppr @ 2026

文献检索

告别复杂PubMed语法,用中文像聊天一样搜索,搜遍4000万医学文献。AI智能推荐,让科研检索更轻松。

立即免费搜索

文件翻译

保留排版,准确专业,支持PDF/Word/PPT等文件格式,支持 12+语言互译。

免费翻译文档

深度研究

AI帮你快速写综述,25分钟生成高质量综述,智能提取关键信息,辅助科研写作。

立即免费体验

Ipecac-induced emesis and gastric lavage are equally unpleasant.

作者信息

Tandberg D, Wood D A

机构信息

Division of Emergency Medicine, University of New Mexico, Albuquerque 87131.

出版信息

Vet Hum Toxicol. 1988 Apr;30(2):109-11.

PMID:2898180
Abstract

It has been widely held that gastric lavage is more unpleasant than ipecac-induced emesis. In fact, patients are occasionally threatened with large rubber tubes in order to persuade them to drink ipecac. To confirm that this assumption exists, we asked 41 emergency physicians and nurses who had never personally undergone either procedure to estimate the discomfort of each using a 10 cm unsegmented visual analog scale. This "naive" group thought that gastric lavage would be significantly more unpleasant than ipecac-induced emesis (mean scores: lavage = 6.46, emesis = 4.94; P less than .001, paired t-test). Using the same methods, we asked 16 health professionals who had undergone both procedures as part of another study to score the recalled unpleasantness of each procedure. Among these who had actually experienced both, there was no significant difference between the mean scores for lavage (4.09) and emesis (4.62) (P greater than 0.5, paired t-test). The mean score difference (lavage minus emesis) for the "naive" group was significantly greater than for the experimental group (1.52 vs -.53, P less than .001, unpaired t-test). Among normal volunteers, ipecac-induced emesis and gastric lavage are equally unpleasant gastric emptying procedures.

摘要

相似文献

1
Ipecac-induced emesis and gastric lavage are equally unpleasant.
Vet Hum Toxicol. 1988 Apr;30(2):109-11.
2
Ipecac-induced emesis versus gastric lavage: a controlled study in normal adults.
Am J Emerg Med. 1986 May;4(3):205-9. doi: 10.1016/0735-6757(86)90066-5.
3
Evaluation of gastric emptying using radionuclides: gastric lavage versus ipecac-induced emesis.
Ann Emerg Med. 1993 Sep;22(9):1423-7. doi: 10.1016/s0196-0644(05)81990-0.
4
Nonemetic effects of ipecac syrup.吐根糖浆的非催吐作用。
Pediatrics. 1985 Jun;75(6):1101-4.
5
Gastric emptying. Risk versus benefit in the treatment of acute poisoning.胃排空。急性中毒治疗中的风险与获益
Med Toxicol. 1986 Mar-Apr;1(2):142-53. doi: 10.1007/BF03259833.
6
Efficacy of gastric emptying: gastric lavage versus emesis induced with ipecac.胃排空效果:洗胃与吐根糖浆催吐的比较
Ann Emerg Med. 1986 Jun;15(6):692-8. doi: 10.1016/s0196-0644(86)80427-9.
7
Efficacy of ipecac-induced emesis, orogastric lavage, and activated charcoal for acute drug overdose.吐根糖浆催吐、胃灌洗及活性炭用于急性药物过量的疗效。
Ann Emerg Med. 1987 Aug;16(8):838-41. doi: 10.1016/s0196-0644(87)80518-8.
8
Gastrointestinal decontamination of the poisoned patient.中毒患者的胃肠道去污。
Pediatr Emerg Care. 2008 Mar;24(3):176-86; quiz 187-9. doi: 10.1097/PEC.0b013e318166a092.
9
Inefficacy of gastric emptying procedures.胃排空手术无效。
J Emerg Med. 1985;3(2):133-6. doi: 10.1016/0736-4679(85)90045-9.
10
Comparison of ipecac-induced emesis with gastric lavage in the treatment of acute salicylate ingestion.
J Pediatr. 1969 May;74(5):800-3. doi: 10.1016/s0022-3476(69)80147-2.