Comparative Study of Acetaminophen-Morphine versus Rofecoxib-Morphine for Post-Tonsillectomy Pain Control
Bibliographic record
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: Although we routinely use morphine at our institution, moderate to severe pain often persists for several days after tonsillectomy. Nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs could offer significant relief. Unfortunately, concerns about increased risk of bleeding limit their use. Selective inhibitors of cyclooxygenase type 2 (COX-2), such as rofecoxib, which do not affect bleeding time, could be an interesting option. OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the efficiency and safety of "rofecoxib-morphine" versus "acetaminophen-morphine" for post-tonsillectomy pain control. METHOD: Eighty children (5-17 years old) took part in this prospective comparative study. Forty children were in the acetaminophen-morphine group (group A), and the remaining 40 children were in the rofecoxib-morphine group (group R). Pain scores, administered doses of medication, side effects, and the general health status of the child were collected by telephone calls made on the first, third, and seventh days after surgery. RESULTS: Pain scores for group A compared with group R are as follows: day 0 at home arrival, 4.6 to 2.5; day 0 average, 4.7 to 3.3; day 1, 3.6 to 2.6; day 3, 2.3 to 1.4; and day 7, 1.4 to 2.0. Moreover, children who received rofecoxib generally drank, ate, and returned to their regular activities more quickly than the children of group A. No side effects were reported with rofecoxib. CONCLUSION: Rofecoxib (COX-2 inhibitor) significantly reduces pain scores after pediatric tonsillectomy. The combination of rofecoxib and morphine is safe and helps children return more quickly to their activities.
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 | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".