The use of ice‐lollies for pain relief post‐paediatric tonsillectomy. A single‐blinded, randomised, controlled trial
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: To assess whether the use of ice-lollies after tonsillectomy with or without adenoidectomy in children aged 2-12 reduces pain in the immediate postoperative period. DESIGN: A prospective, randomised, single-blinded study design consisting of two groups with an intention to treat analysis. SETTING: Tertiary referral centre. PARTICIPANTS: Children aged 2-12 undergoing tonsillectomy with or without adenoidectomy. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Pain assessment by nursing staff in the form of the validated modified Children's Hospital of Eastern Ontario Pain Scale at 15, 30 and 60 min and 4 h. RESULTS: Ninety-two patients were recruited into the study with 46 allocated to receive an ice-lolly and 41 not to receive an ice-lolly after exclusion of those with incomplete data. The two groups were comparable for number, age, sex and diagnosis. The pain score at every time interval was lower in the group that had received the ice-lolly compared with the group that had not. This was statistically significant at 30 (P = 0.008) and 60 min (P = 0.049). CONCLUSION: Our data suggest that ice-lollies are a cheap, effective and safe method of reducing postoperative pain up to one hour following paediatric tonsillectomy.
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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.003 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.005 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 0.001 |
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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".