The effect of analgesic education on pain in patients undergoing breast surgery: within 24 hours after the operation
Bibliographic record
Abstract
AIM: The goal of this study was to assess the effect of patient information about the analgesics used after breast surgery, on patient's level of pain and mobilisation ability. BACKGROUND: Pain needs to be managed efficiently; in particular, for surgical cases, postoperative pain must be effectively controlled. Information about analgesic helped reduce the severity of pain. DESIGN: This study was a clinical trial comparing a test group that received information about the analgesic to be used and a control group that received information as usual. METHODS: Eighty-four patients who had a modified radical mastectomy or breast-conserving surgery were included in the study. Data were collected in a breast surgery clinic with a questionnaire, with the use of Short-form McGill-Melzack Pain Questionnaire and the Visual Analogue Scale. The test group received information about the surgical pain and the analgesics that would be used during the postoperative period. RESULTS: The results showed that the level of pain reported by patients was similar in the test and control groups. However, the average level of postoperative pain in the test group was lower than that in the control group. The total pain reduction score for the test group, after surgery, was greater than for the control group. Following surgery, 73·8% of the test group and 50·0% of the control group achieved mobilisation within the first six hours. CONCLUSION: Informing patients about the analgesics to be used for their care reduced pain and provided earlier mobilisation. RELEVANCE TO CLINICAL PRACTICE: The findings of this study can provide guidance to nurses and improve analgesic control of pain management.
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 | 0.011 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 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".