A Bongiorno, M G Cataldo, A Salvia, A D'Aiuto, C Ciranni
{"title":"[Alizapride in upper digestive endoscopy. A double-blind study vs metoclopramide and placebo].","authors":"A Bongiorno, M G Cataldo, A Salvia, A D'Aiuto, C Ciranni","doi":"","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>In order to assess the antiemetic properties of alizapride in the specific context of premedication for endoscopy, a double blind test was conducted on 100 patients against both metoclopramide and a placebo. Efficacy was assessed on the basis of the following parameters: technical judgement of the endoscopist; assessment of evident signs of \"discomfort\" by an outside observer; comparative judgement (better, worse, same) of the patient's condition after the two endoscopies performed. In the case of the first two parameters, alizapride proved significantly more effective than the control substances. The patients themselves only expressed a significant preference for alizapride vis-à-vis the placebo. It is concluded that given its efficacy and the absence of side effects, alizapride is of value in premedication for endoscopy.</p>","PeriodicalId":18687,"journal":{"name":"Minerva dietologica e gastroenterologica","volume":"35 4","pages":"265-8"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"1989-10-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Minerva dietologica e gastroenterologica","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Abstract
In order to assess the antiemetic properties of alizapride in the specific context of premedication for endoscopy, a double blind test was conducted on 100 patients against both metoclopramide and a placebo. Efficacy was assessed on the basis of the following parameters: technical judgement of the endoscopist; assessment of evident signs of "discomfort" by an outside observer; comparative judgement (better, worse, same) of the patient's condition after the two endoscopies performed. In the case of the first two parameters, alizapride proved significantly more effective than the control substances. The patients themselves only expressed a significant preference for alizapride vis-à-vis the placebo. It is concluded that given its efficacy and the absence of side effects, alizapride is of value in premedication for endoscopy.