A dedicated intravenous cannula for postoperative use Effect on incidence and severity of phlebitis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
A prospective, randomised, controlled clinical study was performed to compare the incidence and severity of postoperative peripheral venous thrombophlebitis associated with a single intravenous cannula used for both intra-operative and postoperative purposes, and two cannulae, one used intra-operatively and the other postoperatively. Sixty American Society of Anaesthesiologists (ASA) physical status I or II patients aged 18-65 years undergoing elective surgery were studied. The technique of cannula insertion was standardised. After surgery, the cannulation sites were examined daily by a blinded investigator for the presence and severity of thrombophlebitis using the Baxter Scale. The two groups were similar in terms of age, gender, weight, type and duration of surgical procedures, and drugs and fluids administered both intra-operatively and postoperatively. The proportion of patients that developed phlebitis was significantly less in the two cannulae group (26.1%) than in the single cannula group (63.3%) (p < 0.0001). The severity of phlebitis was greater in the single cannula group than in the two cannulae group. These results indicate that the use of a dedicated cannula for postoperative use decreases the incidence and severity of postoperative, peripheral, cannula-related phlebitis.
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 | 0.009 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".