Case series / case reportcited by the Tayebat archiveabstract only checked A-VEG-11 standard review
Toxic squash syndrome case
Toxic squash syndrome: a case report.
Overview
Prudhomme N et al.. CJEM 2022 · PMID 35869358 · DOI 10.1007/s43678-022-00358-1
Case report; content not available to us.
Does the study support the specific claim? Partly · Methodological quality: very low
Plain-language summary
Study explained simply
- What did the researchers want to find out?
Report case
- How was the study done?
Case report
- How many people, animals or samples were studied?
Not available
- What was actually found?
Not verified
- How large was the observed effect?
Not applicable
- What do the results mean in everyday life?
Not applicable
- What are the study's limitations?
Not read
- What does it say about Elawady's specific claim?
Bitter-only
- Do the results apply to Germany and Europe?
Moderate
- What can explicitly not be concluded from this study?
Cannot generalise.
Scientific in-depth review
1. Full reference
- Authors
- Prudhomme N, Pan A, Hendin A
- Journal
- CJEM
- Year
- 2022
- Identifier
- PMID 35869358 DOI 10.1007/s43678-022-00358-1
- Verification
- verified – PubMed E-utilities efetch, 2026-10-25
- Retracted
- no
- Corrections
- none
- Extent checked
- abstract only
- Conflicts of interest and funding
not stated in abstract
2. Research question
Toxic squash syndrome case.
3. Study design and population
- Study design
- Case series / case report – Case report
- Population
Case
- Country
Canada
- Period
Not stated
- Sample size
Not available (no abstract)
- Inclusion and exclusion criteria
Not applicable
4. Methods and endpoints
- Exposure / intervention
Bitter squash
- Comparator
None
- Endpoints
Clinical course
- Statistical methods
Not applicable
5. Actual results
- Results
No abstract in PubMed; not read.
- Absolute risks
not reported
- Authors' conclusion
Not available.
6. Strengths
- Documents syndrome
7. Weaknesses
- No abstract
8. Risk of bias
- Orienting tool
- none applicable
- Type of assessment
- simplified assessment (abstract only)
- Full formal assessment
- no
- Overall risk of bias
- not assessable
- Rationale
Case report.
9. Assessment of the statistical interpretation
Not applicable.
10. Relevance to the specific claim
Supports C-VEG-09.
11. Independent contrary findings
Le Roux 2018.
12. Transferability to Germany and Europe
Moderate.
13. Overall methodological judgement
Content not read.
| Multidimensional assessment | |
|---|---|
| Authenticity of the source | verified |
| Methodological quality | very low |
| Risk of bias | not assessable |
| Precision of results | not applicable |
| Directness | direct |
| Reproducibility | replicated |
| Consistency with the overall evidence | consistent |
| Regional transferability | moderate |
| Adequacy of the interpretation (by the archive) | not verifiable |
14. Open questions
Details.
15. Linked fact checks
Use by the Tayebat archive
Note: according to the archive, the studies were compiled by the archive operators. Whether Dr. Elawady himself cited this study is not established.
- What the archive says about the study
Bibliography only.
- A. What was actually studied?
Case report.
- B. What did the authors find?
Not verifiable.
- C. What conclusions do the authors themselves draw?
Not verifiable.
- D. What does the archive derive from it?
Cucurbits harmful.
- E. Is this derivation scientifically justified?
Only for bitter squash.
- Adequacy of the interpretation (by the archive)
- not verifiable