Skip to main content Accessibility help
×
Home
Hostname: page-component-684bc48f8b-vgwqb Total loading time: 2.143 Render date: 2021-04-12T06:19:43.980Z Has data issue: true Feature Flags: { "shouldUseShareProductTool": true, "shouldUseHypothesis": true, "isUnsiloEnabled": true, "metricsAbstractViews": false, "figures": false, "newCiteModal": false, "newCitedByModal": true }

Association between ondansetron use and symptom persistence in children with concussions: A 5P substudy

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  07 June 2018

Jocelyn Gravel
Affiliation:
Department of Pediatrics, CHU Sainte-Justine, Université de Montréal, Montréal, QC
Kathy Boutis
Affiliation:
Department of Pediatrics, The Hospital for Sick Children, University of Toronto, Toronto, ON
Ken Tang
Affiliation:
Clinical Research Unit, Children's Hospital of Eastern Ontario Research Institute, Ottawa, ON
Miriam H. Beauchamp
Affiliation:
Department of Psychology, Université de Montréal, Montréal, QC
Stephen B. Freedman
Affiliation:
Department of Pediatrics, Alberta’s Children Hospital, Calgary, AB
Alexander Sasha Dubrovsky
Affiliation:
Department of Pediatrics, Montreal Children’s Hospital, McGill University Health Centre, Montréal, QC
Isabelle Gagnon
Affiliation:
Research Institute of the McGill University Health Centre, Montréal, QC
Frank Momoli
Affiliation:
Clinical Research Unit, Children's Hospital of Eastern Ontario Research Institute, Ottawa, ON School of Epidemiology, Public Health and Preventive Medicine, University of Ottawa, Ottawa, ON Ottawa Hospital Research Institute, Ottawa, ON.
Roger Zemek
Affiliation:
Department of Pediatrics, Children’s Hospital of Eastern Ontario Research Institute, Ottawa, ON
Corresponding
E-mail address:

Abstract

Objective

Ondansetron is increasingly administered to children suffering from concussion-associated nausea/vomiting. We examined the association between ondansetron administration and post-concussion symptoms in children at 1 week and 1 month following the concussion.

Methods

This was a secondary analysis of data collected prospectively in a cohort study conducted in nine pediatric emergency departments (EDs) (5P study). Participants were children ages between 5 and 17.99 years who sustained a concussion in the previous 48 hours. For the current study, only 5P participants who reported nausea and/or vomiting in the ED were eligible. The exposure of interest was ondansetron administration; the comparison group included all other participants. The primary outcome was an increase in at least three symptoms of the Post-Concussion Symptom Inventory score at 1 week and 1 month following trauma.

Results

Among the 3,063 children included in the 5P study, 1805 (59%) reported nausea and provided data at 1 week and/or 1 month. Among them, 132 (7%) received ondansetron. Multivariable logistic regression adjusted for confounders did not show an association between ondansetron use and the risk of persistent post-concussion symptoms at 1 week (OR: 1.13 [95% CI: 0.86-1.49]), but it was associated with a higher risk at 1 month (OR: 1.33 [95% CI: 1.05-1.97]).

Conclusion

In children presenting to the ED with an acute concussion, ondansetron use was associated with a higher risk of persistent post-concussion symptoms at 1 month. Although this may be related to the limitations of the design, it highlights the importance of evaluating this association using a randomized clinical trial.

Résumé

Objectif

On administre de plus en plus souvent de l’ondansétron aux enfants qui souffrent de nausées ou de vomissements associés à une commotion cérébrale. L’étude visait à examiner l’association entre l’utilisation de l’ondansétron et les symptômes liés à une commotion cérébrale chez les enfants, une semaine et un mois suivant le trauma.

Méthode

Il s’agit d’une analyse secondaire de données recueillies dans le cadre d’une étude prospective de cohorte (étude 5P), menée dans 9 services des urgences (SU) pédiatriques. Les participants étaient des enfants âgés de 5 à 17,99 ans, qui avaient subi une commotion cérébrale au cours des 48 heures précédentes. Seulement les participants de l'étude 5P faisant état de nausées ou de vomissements au SU, étaient admissibles à l’étude en question. Le point d’intérêt était l’administration d’ondansétron; le groupe de comparaison était formé de tous les autres participants. Le principal critère d’évaluation consistait en l’intensification d’au moins 3 symptômes selon l’inventaire des symptômes postcommotionnels, une semaine et un mois suivant le trauma.

Résultats

Sur les 3063 enfants ayant participé à l’étude 5P, 1805 (59 %) avaient fait état de nausées ou de vomissements, et avaient fourni des données au bout d’une semaine et d’un mois. Parmi ceux-ci, 132 enfants (7 %) avaient reçu de l’ondansétron. D’après une analyse de régression logistique à plusieurs variables, rajustée pour tenir compte de facteurs parasites, il n’y avait pas d’association entre l’utilisation de l’ondansétron et le risque de persistance de symptômes postcommotionnels au bout d’une semaine (risque relatif approché [RRA] : 1,13 [IC à 95 % : 0,86-1,49]), mais une association a été établie avec une augmentation du risque au bout d’un mois (RRA : 1,33 [IC à 95 % : 1,05-1,97]).

Conclusions

D’après les résultats de l’étude, l’utilisation de l’ondansétron chez les enfants traités au SU pour une commotion cérébrale en phase aiguë a été associée à une augmentation du risque de persistance de symptômes postcommotionnels au bout d’un mois. Si les constatations peuvent être liées aux limites du plan d’étude, elles font néanmoins ressortir l’importance d’évaluer la relation dans le cadre d’un essai clinique à répartition aléatoire.

Type
Original Research
Copyright
Copyright © Canadian Association of Emergency Physicians 2018 

CLINICIAN’S CAPSULE

What is known about the topic?

Most children who sustain a concussion suffer from post-concussion symptoms for many weeks following the accident.

What did this study ask?

Is there an association between ondansetron administration and the presence of persistent post-concussion symptoms at 1 week and 1 month in children?

What did this study find?

This observational study found that the use of ondansetron among children presenting to the emergency department with an acute concussion was associated with a higher risk of persistent symptoms at 1 month.

Why does this study matter to clinicians?

The treatment of short-term symptoms of a concussion should be balanced with the potential long-term harm of ondansetron.

INTRODUCTION

A concussion is a problem commonly evaluated in the emergency department (ED). Recent studies suggest that children may represent as much as 90% of all concussionsReference Amoo-Achampong, Rosas and Schmoke 1 with an annual incidence for teenagers, varying between 10.5/1,000 to 16.5/1,000.Reference Zhang, Sing and Rugg 2 Between 55% and 90% of patients who sustain a concussion suffer from post-concussion symptoms at 1 week following the accident.Reference Carroll, Cassidy and Peloso 3 - Reference Zemek, Barrowman and Freedman 5 These symptoms can be cognitive (memory loss, attention deficit, etc.), somatic (headache, fatigue, nausea), or psychological (depression, irritability, etc.) in nature. Moreover, studies report that 40% of concussed patients suffer persistent symptoms at 1 month,Reference Ingebrigtsen, Waterloo and Marup-Jensen 6 and as many as 15% remain symptomatic at 1 year post-injury.Reference Alexander 7 , Reference Reitan and Wolfson 8

Many patients requiring medical attention following a concussion are initially evaluated in the ED.Reference Zemek, Grool and Rodriguez Duque 9 As soon as proper assessment is completed, treatments offered for patients suffering from a concussion are limited and mainly directed at alleviating symptoms. This includes medication given in the acute phase to decrease pain, nausea, or sometimes dehydration secondary to vomiting. Aside from guidelines recommending a period of activity restriction (physical and cognitive rest),Reference McCrory, Meeuwisse and Aubry 10 - Reference Giza, Kutcher and Ashwal 14 there is little evidence to inform management of the concussion. Four systematic reviews confirm the paucity of studies evaluating treatment for a concussion,Reference Borg, Holm and Peloso 15 - Reference King, Brughelli, Hume and Gissane 18 concluding that no acute intervention has been shown to improve the recovery and outcome of concussed patients.

Over the past few years, there is a growing trend among pediatric emergency physicians to prescribe ondansetron for children with a concussion who present with vomiting.Reference Sturm, Pierzchala, Simon and Hirsh 19 , Reference Freedman, Uleryk, Rumantir and Finkelstein 20 Although being given mainly to relieve symptoms in the acute setting, ondansetron may improve recovery from a concussion by decreasing early symptoms of nausea and vomiting, decreasing energy demands, and enhancing brain rest. However, the clinical impact of ondansetron on time to recovery following a concussion has been poorly evaluated. The primary objective of this study was to evaluate the association between ondansetron administration and the presence of persistent post-concussive symptoms (PPCS) at 1 week and 1 month in children.

METHODS

Design

This was a secondary analysis of the data of the 5P study,Reference Zemek, Barrowman and Freedman 5 a prospective cohort study of children with a concussion evaluated in multiple pediatric EDs in Canada. The idea of this sub-analysis emerged during the recruitment of patients but before the analysis.

Setting

Nine Canadian pediatric hospital EDs were involved in the project and recruited patients in 2013-2015. These sites are members of the Pediatric Emergency Research Canada (PERC) group. All of their institutional review boards approved the study.

Participants

Study participants were children and adolescents ages 5 to 17.99 years who presented in the first 48 hours following a head trauma and met the Zurich concussion criteria.Reference McCrory, Meeuwisse and Aubry 10 Patients with a language barrier, abnormal neuroradiological findings, neurosurgical operative intervention, intubation or pediatric intensive care unit (PICU) care required, multisystem injuries with treatment requiring admission to the hospital, operating room or procedural sedation, neurological developmental delay, or intoxication were excluded. All participants/families provided written informed consent to be included in the study.

Participants of the sub-study reported nausea and/or vomiting at recruitment (based on an item from the self-reported version of the Post-Concussion Symptom Inventory [PCSI]).

Outcomes

The primary outcome was PPCS at 1 week following the index traumatic event, as defined in the 5P study.Reference Zemek, Barrowman and Freedman 5 This was defined as an increase from the pre-concussion baseline of at least three symptoms from the PCSI. The PCSI is a symptom scale that queries symptoms reflecting physical, cognitive, emotional, and sleep domains.Reference Sady, Vaughan and Gioia 21 The decision to evaluate the outcome at 1 week was based on the observation that more than 50% of children who sustain a concussion suffer from persistent symptoms at 1 week,Reference King, Brughelli, Hume and Gissane 18 , Reference King 22 , Reference King, Crawford and Wenden 23 and that most guidelines recommend rest for at least 1 week.Reference Harmon, Drezner and Gammons 12 , Reference Giza, Kutcher and Ashwal 14 Because the outcome may be more important at 1 month for some individuals, persistence of symptoms for 1 month was also included as a primary outcome.

Secondary outcomes included the presence of nausea at 1 week and 1 month.

Treatment

The exposure of interest was a dichotomous variable representing those who received at least a single dose of intravenous or oral ondansetron in the ED. The comparison (reference) group included all other children with nausea and/or vomiting at baseline but did not receive ondansetron.

Demographic and clinical characteristics

Because this was not a randomized trial, other characteristics were considered as covariates in the analyses to minimize the risk of confounding bias when estimating the treatment effect of ondansetron. We considered a broad range of 37 pre-treatment variables measured in the original 5P study as the initial list of candidate confounders, which included demographic characteristics (e.g., age, sex), pre-morbid history (e.g., patient previous history of concussion, migraines, learning disability, depression), initial clinical presentation at the ED (e.g., loss of consciousness, mechanism of injury), extent of a wide range of acute concussion-related symptoms, as well as performance on standardized tests in the ED (e.g., Balance Error Scoring System tandem stance test). The full list of candidate confounders is presented in Table 1.

Table 1. Participants’ baseline demographic characteristics (n=1,805)

All PCSI-P scores are delta scores (difference between current symptom and pre-injury symptom; if a negative value then a score of 0 is given).

PCSI=Post-Concussion Symptom Inventory.

Analysis

Univariate and multivariable logistic regression analyses were used to estimate the relationship between treatment (receiving or not receiving ondansetron in the ED) and each of the four study outcomes. For each multivariable model, we maximized the number of covariates that were included based on a 15:1 event-per-variable ratio where “events” referred to the number of observations in the outcome level with the smaller proportion of the sample. Because the number of events differed for each of four study outcomes, the number of covariates ultimately included in the respective regression models also varied (see Table A1 in the Online Appendix). To prioritize the inclusion of the maximum number of covariates for regression adjustment, the non-linearity of continuous variables was not considered, and variables with greater than two categories were collapsed into two levels considered the most meaningful or treated as a continuous variable.

Because there was a non-trivial amount of missing values for covariates and outcomes (24.2% of cases had at least one missing value), we initially performed multiple imputation using additive regression, bootstrap, and the predictive mean matching method.Reference White, Royston and Wood 24 Variables in the imputation model included all 38 candidate covariates, the four study outcomes, plus the study site. The imputation procedure was repeated 25 times (i.e., 100x the fraction of cases with incomplete covariates). As soon as these imputed data sets were generated, the proposed multivariable logistic regressions were fitted separately for each of the imputed data sets, where parameter estimates are then averaged across these data sets, and imputation-adjusted variance estimates are computed. Lastly, clustered standard errors for the treatment effect were estimated to account for potential intra-site correlation. All analyses were performed using R version 3.3.2 (rms, Hmisc packages).

RESULTS

Among the 3,063 children included in the 5P study, 1,805 children were eligible for the current study (Figure 1), the PPCS outcome at week 1 was available for 1,549 children, and it was available for 1,516 children at 4 weeks. Table 1 demonstrates that baseline characteristics of the participants were similar between the two groups with the exception that patients in the ondansetron group received other medications more frequently than controls. Among these participants, 132 (7%) received oral (120 ) or intravenous (10 ) ondansetron (2 received it by both routes). PPCS were present in 969/1,549 (63%) at 1 week and 524/1,516 (35%) at 1 month. With respect to the presence of nausea, 480/1,546 (31%) reported this symptom at week 1, and 212/1,518 (14%) at week 4.

Figure 1 Flow diagram of participant recruitment and selection.

In the unadjusted analysis, the use of ondansetron was not statistically associated to the PPCS at 1 week (OR: 1.08 [95% CI: 0.73-1.59]) or 1 month (OR: 1.18 [95% CI: 0.80-1.74]) (Table 2). Once adjusted for covariates, there remained no statistical association between ondansetron use and the risk of PPCS at 1 week (adjusted OR: 1.17 [95% CI: 0.68-2.04]); however, an increase association was observed at 1 month (OR: 1.33 [95% CI: 1.05-1.68]).

Table 2. Association between use of ondansetron and outcomes (n=1,805)

* The denominator changes depending on how many missing values on the outcome (due to loss to follow-up or participant simply not completing question); values reflect raw data prior to performing multiple imputations.

To prevent from overfitting, the number of model covariables included depended on sample size considerations (i.e., number of observations in a smaller level of binary study outcome). See Table 1 for specific covariables included in each model.

Use of ondansetron in the ED was not statistically associated to the presence of nausea at 1 week or 1 month following the ED visit on univariate logistic regression and after adjusting for other predictors (see Table 2).

DISCUSSION

This study failed to identify a decrease in post-concussion symptoms at 1 week and 1 month following a concussion among children ages 5 to 17.99 years who received ondansetron in the ED. However, the use of ondansetron was associated with an increase in the risk of PPCS at 1 month on multiple regression.

There is a paucity of literature specifically describing the use of ondansetron for patients with head trauma and, to our knowledge, no study has evaluated other antiemetics for long-term concussion symptoms. A retrospective cohort study involving 6,311 children with head concussion reported a lower risk of revisit associated with the use of ondansetron in children.Reference Sturm, Simon, Khan and Hirsh 25 However, major differences between the two study populations (use of ondansetron, 25% v. 7%), the proportion of a computed tomography (CT) scan (100% v. 4% ) and the number of sites involved may have led to confounding by severity – the sicker patients being more at risk of receiving ondansetron and having PPCS. Another small pilot study conducted to assess the feasibility of a randomized controlled trial of the impact of ondansetron in concussed teenagersReference Gravel, Carriere and D’Angelo 26 reported a trend towards a lower proportion of children with PPCS at 1 week (OR: 0.60 [95% CI: 0.08-4.4]) and 1 month (OR: 0.20 [95% CI: 0.02-1.70]) following oral ondansetron.Reference Gravel, Carriere and D’Angelo 27

From a theoretical perspective, ondansetron holds promise for potentially minimizing post-concussion symptoms. The most commonly cited hypothesis for the pathophysiology of concussion suggests that shear forces experienced at the time of injury lead to ionic fluxes, the releases of excitatory neurotransmitters, and a spreading depression-like phenomenon.Reference Giza and Hovda 28 - Reference Shrey, Griesbach and Giza 32 The decreased cerebral blood flow after injuryReference Maugans, Farley and Altaye 31 limits the influx of adenosine triphosphate (ATP) required to restore homeostasis. The mismatch between demand and supply for ATP may prolong concussion symptoms. As such, physical and cognitive rest may improve recovery through conservation of limited ATP supplies following injury to the brain. Ondansetron may improve recovery from concussion by decreasing early symptoms of nausea and vomiting, which has been associated with PPCS at 3 months.Reference Babcock, Byczkowski and Wade 33 Also, this could improve rest and improve recovery because it was previously demonstrated that PPCS is inversely related to rest quality.Reference Boutis, Cogollo and Fischer 34 , Reference Moser, Glatts and Schatz 35 On the other hand, ondansetron could also be deleterious to recovery for multiple reasons. By minimizing the initial symptoms, it could hasten return to play and limit brain rehabilitation, as well as increase the risk of a second impact on brain cells. However, a recent study showed that early activity was associated with a lower risk of PPCS.Reference Grool, Aglipay and Momoli 36 Also, decreasing initial symptoms could modify medication consumption or feeding. Finally, ondansetron’s effect on 5HT-3 receptors may interplay with an energy homeostasis of the brain and slow recovery process.

The clinical impact of this study is limited by its exploratory design. However, it raises the question as to whether ondansetron may have a deleterious effect on brain recovery following concussion. Consequently, the treatment of short-term symptoms like nausea and vomiting should be balanced with the potential long-term harm of ondansetron.

There are several limitations inherent to the current study. Among them, the use of an observational design is prone to bias by indication. It is possible that the baseline risk of PPCS was different for children who received ondansetron than for the control group. They may have suffered from a more severe concussion. To account for this, we adjusted the analysis according to multiple factors identified in the 5P study. To balance for unknown risk factor, it would be important to conduct a randomized clinical trial. Missing data limited the precision of our findings. To account for this, we used multiple imputation techniques. Although this permitted to include more patients, there is a risk of unknown biases related to missing data. Another limitation is the absence of a standard dose, number, or route of administration of the ondansetron. This may impact effectiveness of the medication and could be addressed by another study. Also, we did not collect information regarding home medication. Finally, the inclusion of patients who received other antiemetic medication in the control group may have biased the result towards the null hypothesis. However, there were very few patients for whom other antiemetic medication administration was documented.

In conclusion, this exploratory sub-analysis failed to identify a decrease in the risk of PPCS at 1 week among children ages 5 to 17.99 years who suffered a concussion and received ondansetron in the ED. Moreover, as a group, patients who received ondansetron had a worse outcome at 1 month. While this may be related to the design of our study, it highlights the importance of evaluating the impact of this medication on recovery from concussion. Future studies should continue to explore potential therapies to mitigate ongoing concussion symptoms and sequelae.

Competing interests

None declared.

SUPPLEMENTARY MATERIALS

To view supplementary material for this article, please visit https://doi.org/10.1017/cem.2018.384

References

1.Amoo-Achampong, K, Rosas, S, Schmoke, N, et al. Trends in sports-related concussion diagnoses in the USA: a population-based analysis using a private-payor database. Phys Sportsmed 2017;45(3):239-244.10.1080/00913847.2017.1327304CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
2.Zhang, AL, Sing, DC, Rugg, CM, et al. The rise of concussions in the adolescent population. Orthop J Sports Med 2016;4(8). 10.177/2325967116662458.Google ScholarPubMed
3.Carroll, LJ, Cassidy, JD, Peloso, PM, et al. Prognosis for mild traumatic brain injury: results of the WHO Collaborating Centre Task Force on Mild Traumatic Brain Injury. J Rehabil Med 2004;(43 Suppl):84-105.10.1080/16501960410023859CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
4.Pertab, JL, James, KM, Bigler, ED. Limitations of mild traumatic brain injury meta-analyses. Brain Inj 2009;23(6):498-508.10.1080/02699050902927984CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
5.Zemek, R, Barrowman, N, Freedman, SB, et al. Clinical risk score for persistent postconcussion symptoms among children with acute concussion in the ED. JAMA 2016;315(10):1014-1025.10.1001/jama.2016.1203CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
6.Ingebrigtsen, T, Waterloo, K, Marup-Jensen, S, et al. Quantification of post-concussion symptoms 3 months after minor head injury in 100 consecutive patients. J Neurol 1998;245(9):609-612.10.1007/s004150050254CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
7.Alexander, MP. Mild traumatic brain injury: pathophysiology, natural history, and clinical management. Neurology 1995;45(7):1253-1260.10.1212/WNL.45.7.1253CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
8.Reitan, RM, Wolfson, D. The two faces of mild head injury. Arch Clin Neuropsychol 1999;14(2):191-202.10.1093/arclin/14.2.191CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
9.Zemek, RL, Grool, AM, Rodriguez Duque, D, et al. Annual and seasonal trends in ambulatory visits for pediatric concussion in Ontario between 2003 and 2013. J Pediatr 2017;181:222-8.e2.10.1016/j.jpeds.2016.10.067CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
10.McCrory, P, Meeuwisse, WH, Aubry, M, et al. Consensus statement on concussion in sport: the 4th International Conference on Concussion in Sport held in Zurich, November 2012. Br J Sports Med 2013;47(5):250-258.10.1136/bjsports-2013-092313CrossRefGoogle Scholar
11.Marshall, S, Bayley, M, McCullagh, S, et al. Clinical practice guidelines for mild traumatic brain injury and persistent symptoms. Can Fam Physician 2012;58(3):257-340.Google ScholarPubMed
12.Harmon, KG, Drezner, JA, Gammons, M, et al. American Medical Society for Sports Medicine position statement: concussion in sport. Br J Sports Med 2013;47(1):15-26.10.1136/bjsports-2012-091941CrossRefGoogle Scholar
13.Herring, SA, Cantu, RC, Guskiewicz, KM, et al. Concussion (mild traumatic brain injury) and the team physician: a consensus statement – 2011 update. Med Sci Sports Exerc 2011;43(12):2412-2422.Google Scholar
14.Giza, CC, Kutcher, JS, Ashwal, S, et al. Summary of evidence-based guideline update: evaluation and management of concussion in sports: report of the Guideline Development Subcommittee of the American Academy of Neurology. Neurology 2013;80(24):2250-2257.10.1212/WNL.0b013e31828d57ddCrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
15.Borg, J, Holm, L, Peloso, PM, et al. Non-surgical intervention and cost for mild traumatic brain injury: results of the WHO Collaborating Centre Task Force on Mild Traumatic Brain Injury. J Rehabil Med 2004;(43 Suppl):76-83.10.1080/16501960410023840CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
16.Comper, P, Bisschop, SM, Carnide, N, Tricco, A. A systematic review of treatments for mild traumatic brain injury. Brain Inj 2005;19(11):863-880.10.1080/02699050400025042CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
17.Gravel, J, D’Angelo, A, Carriere, B, et al. Interventions provided in the acute phase for mild traumatic brain injury: a systematic review. Syst Rev 2013;2:63.10.1186/2046-4053-2-63CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
18.King, D, Brughelli, M, Hume, P, Gissane, C. Assessment, management, and knowledge of sport-related concussion: systematic review. Sports Med 2014;44(4):449-471.10.1007/s40279-013-0134-xCrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
19.Sturm, JJ, Pierzchala, A, Simon, HK, Hirsh, DA. Ondansetron use in the pediatric emergency room for diagnoses other than acute gastroenteritis. Pediatr Emerg Care 2012;28(3):247-250.10.1097/PEC.0b013e3182494d87CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
20.Freedman, SB, Uleryk, E, Rumantir, M, Finkelstein, Y. Ondansetron and the risk of cardiac arrhythmias: a systematic review and postmarketing analysis. Ann Emerg Med 2014;64(1):19-25.e6.10.1016/j.annemergmed.2013.10.026CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
21.Sady, MD, Vaughan, CG, Gioia, GA. Psychometric characteristics of the postconcussion symptom inventory in children and adolescents. Arch Clin Neuropsychol 2014;29(4):348-363.10.1093/arclin/acu014CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
22.King, NS. Emotional, neuropsychological, and organic factors: their use in the prediction of persisting postconcussion symptoms after moderate and mild head injuries. J Neurol Neurosurg Psychiatry 1996;61(1):75-81.10.1136/jnnp.61.1.75CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
23.King, NS, Crawford, S, Wenden, FJ, et al. Early prediction of persisting post-concussion symptoms following mild and moderate head injuries. Br J Clin Psychol 1999;38(Pt 1):15-25.10.1348/014466599162638CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
24.White, IR, Royston, P, Wood, AM. Multiple imputation using chained equations: issues and guidance for practice. Stat Med 2011;30(4):377-399.10.1002/sim.4067CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
25.Sturm, JJ, Simon, HK, Khan, NS, Hirsh, DA. The use of ondansetron for nausea and vomiting after head injury and its effect on return rates from the pediatric ED. Am J Emerg Med 2013;31(1):166-172.10.1016/j.ajem.2012.07.002CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
26.Gravel, J, Carriere, B, D’Angelo, A, et al. Ondansetron for pediatric concussion; a pilot study for a randomized controlled trial. CJEM 2017;19(5):338-346.10.1017/cem.2016.369CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
27.Gravel, J, Carriere, B, D’Angelo, A, et al. Ondansetron for pediatric concussion; a pilot study for a randomized controlled trial. CJEM 2017;19(5):338-346.10.1017/cem.2016.369CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
28.Giza, CC, Hovda, DA. The neurometabolic cascade of concussion. J Athl Train 2001;36(3):228-235.Google ScholarPubMed
29.Yoshino, A, Hovda, DA, Kawamata, T, et al. Dynamic changes in local cerebral glucose utilization following cerebral conclusion in rats: evidence of a hyper- and subsequent hypometabolic state. Brain Res 1991;561(1):106-119.10.1016/0006-8993(91)90755-KCrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
30.Shaw, NA. The neurophysiology of concussion. Prog Neurobiol 2002;67(4):281-344.10.1016/S0301-0082(02)00018-7CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
31.Maugans, TA, Farley, C, Altaye, M, et al. Pediatric sports-related concussion produces cerebral blood flow alterations. Pediatrics 2012;129(1):28-37.10.1542/peds.2011-2083CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
32.Shrey, DW, Griesbach, GS, Giza, CC. The pathophysiology of concussions in youth. Phys Med Rehabil Clin N Am 2011;22(4):577-602; vii.10.1016/j.pmr.2011.08.002CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
33.Babcock, L, Byczkowski, T, Wade, SL, et al. Predicting postconcussion syndrome after mild traumatic brain injury in children and adolescents who present to the emergency department. JAMA Pediatr 2013;167(2):156-161.10.1001/jamapediatrics.2013.434CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
34.Boutis, K, Cogollo, W, Fischer, J, et al. Parental knowledge of potential cancer risks from exposure to computed tomography. Pediatrics 2013;132(2):305-311.10.1542/peds.2013-0378CrossRefGoogle Scholar
35.Moser, RS, Glatts, C, Schatz, P. Efficacy of immediate and delayed cognitive and physical rest for treatment of sports-related concussion. J Pediatr 2012;161(5):922-926.10.1016/j.jpeds.2012.04.012CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
36.Grool, AM, Aglipay, M, Momoli, F, et al. Association between early participation in physical activity following acute concussion and persistent postconcussive symptoms in children and adolescents. JAMA 2016;316(23):2504-2514.10.1001/jama.2016.17396CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed

Gravel et al. supplementary material

Gravel et al. supplementary material 1

File 16 KB

Altmetric attention score

Full text views

Full text views reflects PDF downloads, PDFs sent to Google Drive, Dropbox and Kindle and HTML full text views.

Total number of HTML views: 121
Total number of PDF views: 189 *
View data table for this chart

* Views captured on Cambridge Core between 07th June 2018 - 12th April 2021. This data will be updated every 24 hours.

Access Access

Send article to Kindle

To send this article to your Kindle, first ensure no-reply@cambridge.org is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part of your Kindle email address below. Find out more about sending to your Kindle. Find out more about sending to your Kindle.

Note you can select to send to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations. ‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be sent to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.

Find out more about the Kindle Personal Document Service.

Association between ondansetron use and symptom persistence in children with concussions: A 5P substudy
Available formats
×

Send article to Dropbox

To send this article to your Dropbox account, please select one or more formats and confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your <service> account. Find out more about sending content to Dropbox.

Association between ondansetron use and symptom persistence in children with concussions: A 5P substudy
Available formats
×

Send article to Google Drive

To send this article to your Google Drive account, please select one or more formats and confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your <service> account. Find out more about sending content to Google Drive.

Association between ondansetron use and symptom persistence in children with concussions: A 5P substudy
Available formats
×
×

Reply to: Submit a response


Your details


Conflicting interests

Do you have any conflicting interests? *