MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Utilisation of an outpatient sedation unit in paediatric ophthalmology: safety and effectiveness of chloral hydrate in 1509 sedation episodes

2013· article· en· W2012932425 on OpenAlexaff
Stephanie K. West, Beverley Griffiths, Yasmin Shariff, Derek Stephens, Kamiar Mireskandari

Bibliographic record

VenueBritish Journal of Ophthalmology · 2013
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicAnesthesia and Sedative Agents
Canadian institutionsSickKids Foundation
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineSedationChloral hydrateAnesthesiaVomitingRetrospective cohort studyAdverse effectCohortPediatricsSurgeryInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

OBJECTIVE: To report the largest study on the safety and effectiveness of sedation in paediatric ophthalmology in a nurse-led outpatient sedation unit. DESIGN: Retrospective cohort study reviewing all children who underwent sedation from January 2006 to December 2010. Patients were sedated with 80 mg/kg of chloral hydrate (CH) given orally with top up dose given at half dose as required. All demographic data, sedation and procedure duration, sedation success and adverse events were recorded. Univariate and multiple regression analyses were performed to assess factors associated with success and complications. RESULTS: Data was collected for 1509 sedation episodes. More boys were sedated compared with girls (56.3% vs 43.7% p=0.0003) with an average age of 23.86 months and weight of 11.76 kg. A higher proportion of patients had an American Society of Anaesthesiologists status of II than I (58.5%:41.5%, p=0.0001). Successful sedation was obtained in 96.69% of children with 4.77% requiring a top up dose to achieve this. The average sedation duration was 53.4 min (SD=21.5) with an average of 1.7 procedures performed; the most common being a detailed examination (93.5%) and electroretinogram (45.1%). Adverse events included paradoxical reaction (1.33%), oxygen desaturation (0.99%) and vomiting (0.53%). There were no serious complications or hospital admission. Multiple logistic regression analysis found weight greater than 15 kg and needing a top up dose to be significant risk factors for Failure (OR=2.49 and 8.69, respectively) and Adverse events (OR=2.1 and 3.97, respectively). Sex and American Society of Anesthesiologists Physical Status score did not significantly affect outcomes. CONCLUSIONS: CH sedation allows detailed examination and investigations in the majority of children with few side effects. Patients over 15 kg and need for a top up dose are risk factors for failure and adverse events. This is the largest study in the current literature looking at the use of CH sedation in ophthalmology and confirms its safety and effectiveness.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.032
Threshold uncertainty score0.553

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.025
GPT teacher head0.291
Teacher spread0.267 · 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.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
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

Citations35
Published2013
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueBritish Journal of OphthalmologySame topicAnesthesia and Sedative AgentsFrench-language works237,207