Comparing the Effects of Ginger and Metoclopramide on the Treatment of Pregnancy Nausea

Abstract

This study assesses the effects of ginger on nausea and vomiting caused by pregnancy and compares it with metoclopramide medicine. This study was a randomized double-blind controlled trial. Metoclopramide, Ginger and placebo were putted in similar capsules. The medicines were administered three times a day. Then the Rhodes questionnaire was completed and its score were calculated. Data were analyzed by Chi square test, ANOVA and Repeated measurement. The intensity of changes in nausea, vomiting and Rhodes during study were statistically different in two groups of ginger and metoclopramide compared with placebo (p < 0.05), but it was not statistically significant between two groups of ginger and metoclopramide. According to our study, ginger is less effective than metoclopramide in reducing nausea and vomiting but it could be a good alternative for metoclopramide.

Treatments for hyperemesis gravidarum and nausea and vomiting in pregnancy: a systematic review and economic assessment

“…13,41,57,60,[62][63][64]66,67,69,70,76,[80][81][82][83][85][86][87][88][89]91,93,94,[98][99][100][101][102][103][104][106][107][108]110,[112][113][114][115] Methods employed included random number tables, computer-generated sequence generation 61,63,64,[81][82][83]88,93,94,98,99,106,108,…”

“…57,60,61,63,64,66,67,73,76,78,[80][81][82][83][84][85]88,89,93,98,99,102,103,[105][106][107][108]112,118 Thirty studies did not provide sufficient information to allow a judgement of low or high risk and were therefore classed as unclear. 13,[41][42][43]58,59,62,65,[68][69][70][71]74,75,77,79,90,91,[94][95][96][97]100,…”

“…Sixteen studies were judged to have high risk of bias in this respect, for example due to clear differences in either the appearance, dosage rates or mode of delivery between intervention and placebo comparator, or as a result of evidence that the research staff involved were aware of allocation status. 13,58,66,68,75,77,78,80,[87][88][89]91,92,96,101,115 In some instances, however, despite lack of blinding, the nature of the intervention meant that this was not relevant; for example, in McParlin and colleagues 88 where blinding of participants and staff was not possible as the packages of care delivered to the intervention and control groups varied in content. However, it is important to highlight that although it might not have been possible to blind patients or clinicians, outcome assessors and analysts handling the resultant data may nevertheless have been blinded.…”

“…13,41,42,61,62,64,67,70,71,74,81,83,88,96,[101][102][103]106,110,112 However, a substantial number (n = 44) were classed as unclear, due to lack of sufficient information in the paper to permit detailed assessment of whether or not an important risk of bias existed, or due to insufficient rationale or evidence that an identified problem had introduced serious levels of bias to the study. 43,[57][58][59][60]65,66,68,69,72,73,[75][76][77][78][79][80]82,84,85,87,[89][90][91][92][93][94][95][97]…”

“…13,42,60,63,67,70,74,77,82,89,92,96,102,103,110,113 Heterogeneity was observed in relation to the clinical setting and patient populations in which the studies were conducted, as well as the interventions, comparators and outcomes reported in each trial. As previously described (see Chapter 3, Meta-analysis of included randomised controlled trials) given the differences between trials in patient populations, settings, interventions and, in particular, the heterogeneous nature of the reported outcomes across trials, we did not attempt to perform meta-analyses and have thus reported a narrative summary only for each intervention and comparator set, with additional outcome data presented in Table 8.…”