Perception of Discomfort by Patients, Physicians, and Respiratory Technicians During Flexible Bronchoscopy
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The aim of this study was to compare patients' ratings of discomfort from bronchoscopy with the ratings of patient discomfort estimated by medical personnel participating in the procedure. Two hundred seventy-one patients undergoing bronchoscopy over an 18-month period completed a questionnaire immediately after the procedure. Patients were premedicated with either sublingual lorazepam or intravenous midazolam, or did not receive any premedication. Patients, physicians (MDs), and respiratory technicians (RTs) rated the level of discomfort of the procedure using a 10-cm visual analog scale with 0 = no discomfort and 10 = unbearable discomfort. Patients rated various aspects of the bronchoscopy as well as the procedure as a whole using the same 10-cm visual analog scale. Patient discomfort ratings by MDs and RTs showed excellent correlation (r = 0.77), whereas the correlations between MDs and patients (r = 0.45) and RTs and patients (r = 0.46) were fair. A significant difference in discomfort ratings was seen between those patients premedicated with lorazepam (4.26 ± 2.77, n = 110), and those who did not receive any premedication (3.38 ± 2.74, n = 113, P <0.05). Patients premedicated with midazolam did not have a significantly different discomfort rating (3.45 ± 2.41, n = 41) than the other 2 groups. Patientts who received lorazepam (4.65 ± 3.11) or midazolam (5.66 ± 3.24) were significantly more anxious before bronchoscopy than patients who did not receive pre-medication (3.09 ± 2.95, P <0.001). MDs and RTs do not accurately estimate patients' discomfort during bronchoscopy. The discomfort of patients premedicated with lorazepam or midazolam was not decreased beyond levels found in patients who received no premedication.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".