Methylprednisolone Does Not Reduce Persistent Pain after Cardiac Surgery
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Persistent incisional pain is common after cardiac surgery and is believed to be in part related to inflammation and poorly controlled acute pain. Methylprednisolone is a corticosteroid with substantial antiinflammatory and analgesic properties and is thus likely to ameliorate persistent surgical pain. Therefore, the authors tested the primary hypothesis that patients randomized to methylprednisolone have less persistent incisional pain than those given placebo. METHODS: One thousand forty-three patients having cardiopulmonary bypass for cardiac surgery via a median sternotomy were included in this substudy of Steroids in Cardiac Surgery (SIRS) trial. Patients were randomized to 500 mg intraoperative methylprednisolone or placebo. Incisional pain was assessed at 30 days and 6 months after surgery, and the potential risk factors were also evaluated. RESULTS: Methylprednisolone administration did not reduce pain at 30 days or persistent incisional pain at 6 months, which occurred in 78 of 520 patients (15.7%) in the methylprednisolone group and in 88 of 523 patients (17.8%) in the placebo group. The odds ratio for methylprednisolone was 0.93 (95% CI, 0.79 to 1.09, P = 0.37). Furthermore, there was no difference in worst pain and average pain in the last 24 h, pain interference with daily life, or use of pain medicine at 6 months. Younger age, female sex, and surgical infections were associated with the development of persistent incisional pain. CONCLUSIONS: Intraoperative methylprednisolone administration does not reduce persistent incisional pain at 6 months in patients recovering from cardiac surgery.
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 | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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 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".