The DOI matches its Crossref record.
Position Statement: Gastric Lavage: American Academy of Clinical Toxicology; European Association of Poisons Centres and Clinical Toxicologists
Abstract
In preparing this Position Statement, all relevant scientific literature was identified and reviewed critically by acknowledged experts using agreed criteria. Well-conducted clinical and experimental studies were given precedence over anecdotal case reports and abstracts were not usually considered. A draft Position Statement was then produced and subjected to detailed peer review by an international group of clinical toxicologists chosen by the American Academy of Clinical Toxicology and the European Association of Poisons Centres and Clinical Toxicologists. The Position Statement went through multiple drafts before being approved by the boards of the two societies and being endorsed by other societies. The Position Statement includes a summary statement for ease of use and is supported by detailed documentation which describes the scientific evidence on which the Statement is based. Gastric lavage should not be employed routinely in the management of poisoned patients. In experimental studies, the amount of marker removed by gastric lavage was highly variable and diminished with time. There is no certain evidence that its use improves clinical outcome and it may cause significant morbidity. Gastric lavage should not be considered unless a patient has ingested a potentially life-threatening amount of a poison and the procedure can be undertaken within 60 minutes of ingestion. Even then, clinical benefit has not been confirmed in controlled studies. Unless a patient is intubated, gastric lavage is contraindicated if airway protective reflexes are lost. It is also contraindicated if a hydrocarbon with high aspiration potential or corrosive substance has been ingested.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cited by
Multiple-dose activated charcoal in acute self-poisoning: a randomised controlled trial
Eddleston, M., Juszczak, E., Buckley, N. A., Senarathna, L., Mohamed, F., Dissanayake, W., Hittarage, A., Azher, S., Jeganathan, K., Jayamanne, S., et al. (2008) · The Lancet · doi:10.1016/s0140-6736(08)60270-6 · Cited by 227
Mohamed, F., Senarathna, L., Percy, A., Abeyewardene, M., Eaglesham, G., Cheng, R., Azher, S., Hittarage, A., Dissanayake, W., Sheriff, M. H. R., et al. (2004) · Journal of Toxicology: Clinical Toxicology · doi:10.1081/clt-200041784 · Cited by 125
Buckley, N. A., Buckley, N., Whyte, I. M., O'Connell, D. L., & Dawson, A. H. (1999) · Journal of Toxicology: Clinical Toxicology · doi:10.1081/clt-100102452 · Cited by 112
Metadata
- Venue
- Journal of Toxicology: Clinical Toxicology
- Publisher
- Informa UK Limited
- Published
- 1997-01
- Volume
- 35
- Issue
- 7
- Pages
- 711-719
- ISSN
- 0731-3810 (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W160481341
- Cited by
- 323
- References
- 0
- FWCI
- 19.70
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Position Statement: Gastric Lavage: American Academy of Clinical Toxicology; European Association of Poisons Centres and Clinical Toxicologists. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.3109/15563659709162568
- The paper
- Position Statement: Gastric Lavage: American Academy of Clinical Toxicology; European Association of Poisons Centres and Clinical Toxicologists. (1997). Journal of Toxicology: Clinical Toxicology. https://doi.org/10.3109/15563659709162568
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.