[Randomized study comparing piroxicam analgesia and tramadol analgesia during outpatient electromagnetic extracorporeal lithotripsy].
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To analyse the efficacy of two types of analgesia protocols during outpatient electromagnetic extracorporeal lithotripsy (ESWL) with a STORZ Modulith SLX second generation lithotriptor. MATERIAL AND METHODS: One hundred and seventy one patients were prospectively randomized to 2 groups. Group 1 (n-82) received 40 mg of Piroxicam IM, and group 2 (n=89) received 100 mg Tramadol IV Lithotripsy was performed in 2 sequences, T1 and T2, during which quantitative evaluation of pain (VE) was performed according to a VAS scale and qualitative evaluation of pain (QE) was performed according to the McGill questionnaire. Endpoints included the mean VE and QE pain scores at T1 and T2, the maximum power tolerated at T2, the postoperative pain at the 6th, 12th and 24th hours after ESWL, the pain score according to the power and according to the frequency and adverse effects. Comparisons were performed by analyses of variance (significant for p < 0.05). RESULTS: No significant difference was observed between the two groups for stone dimensions, duration and number of ESWL shots (p > 0.05) and significant difference was observedfor pain with the two drugs used. Pain was more severe as frequency and power increased. Only one intervention was stopped because of pain. Data analysis suggests that tramadol induces more adverse effects. CONCLUSION: Piroxicam and tramadol are two analgesics commonly used in clinical practice and both are suitable for the treatment of pain during outpatient extracorporeal lithotripsy.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".