MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2007899739 · doi:10.1097/ogx.0b013e3181b8acc1

A Prospective Randomized Trial Comparing Patient-Controlled Epidural Analgesia to Patient-Controlled Intravenous Analgesia on Postoperative Pain Control and Recovery After Major Open Gynecologic Cancer Surgery

2009· article· en· W2007899739 on OpenAlexaff
Sarah E. Ferguson, Tim Malhotra, Venkatraman Seshan, Douglas A. Levine, Yukio Sonoda, S. Dennis, Richard R. Barakat, Nadeem R. Abu‐Rustum

Bibliographic record

VenueObstetrical & Gynecological Survey · 2009
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicAnesthesia and Pain Management
Canadian institutionsPrincess Margaret Cancer CentreUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineAnesthesiaVisual analogue scaleRandomized controlled trialGynecological surgeryPatient-controlled analgesiaProspective cohort studyOpioidHysterectomySurgeryMorphineAnalgesicInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

A previous prospective comparative study reported no difference in resting or dynamic pain scores among women with gynecologic cancer undergoing laparotomy and radical hysterectomy who were treated with either local anesthetic/opioid patient-controlled epidural analgesia (PCEA) or conventional intravenous (IV) opioid patient-controlled analgesia (PCA). However, there was a shorter hospital stay, earlier return of bowel function, and use of less morphine in the PCEA group. No prospective randomized trials have compared IV PCA to PCEA for postoperative control of pain in women treated for benign or malignant gynecologic diseases. This prospective randomized study compared the effect of PCEA and IV morphine PCA on pain scores and other postoperative recovery parameters in women undergoing major open abdominal surgery. Between 2004 and 2007, 67 patients were randomized to PCEA (treatment group) and 68 to the IV PCA (control group). The majority of study women (75%) had gynecologic cancer. Pain and other postoperative outcomes were compared with an intention-to-treat analysis. A 10-point visual analog scale (VAS) was used to measure postoperative pain, at rest and when coughing. There was significantly less pain at rest among patients in the PCEA group postoperatively on day 1 compared to the PCA group (mean VAS: 3.3 vs. 4.3, P = 0.01). Superior pain control during coughing was found in the PCEA group for first 3 postoperative days; the mean VAS scores on days 1, 2, and 3 were 5.5, 5.0, and 4.7 in the PCEA group, and 6.7, 6.5, and 5.7 in the PEA group (P < 0.05). During the first 6 days, overall postoperative pain in the PCEA group was significantly lower during both rest and coughing compared to the PCA group (P < 0.003). No significant major adverse events were associated with placement or use of the thoracic epidural, and an extremely low rate of epidural malfunctioning was noted. These data show superior pain control by PCEA in comparison to conventional IV PEA among women undergoing major open abdominal surgery, and are consistent with the findings of other randomized controlled trials in different patient populations.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.007
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.049
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch, Meta-epidemiology (narrow)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Randomized trial · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.411
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0070.049
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0060.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.024
GPT teacher head0.278
Teacher spread0.254 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

Study designRandomized trial
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations2
Published2009
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueObstetrical & Gynecological SurveySame topicAnesthesia and Pain ManagementFrench-language works237,207