A Randomized Double‐Blind Comparison of a Morphine–Fentanyl Combination vs. Morphine Alone for Patient‐Controlled Analgesia Following Bowel Surgery
Bibliographic record
Abstract
An ideal patient-controlled analgesia (PCA) opioid would have both a rapid onset and a long duration of action, attributes, which are not available in currently existing opioids including morphine, the most widely used agent. A mixture of rapid onset and long-acting opioids may potentially achieve both these qualities. In a randomized, double-blind study, we compared a fentanyl-morphine combination with morphine alone for PCA, in 54 patients undergoing bowel surgery. The combination solution was prepared according to a 1:75 fentanyl to morphine potency ratio. The mixture contained fentanyl 13.33 mug/mL and morphine 1 mg/mL. The morphine alone solution contained 2 mg/mL. Patients were randomly allocated to one of the regimens and were then evaluated 4 times during the first 48 hours following surgery. Time to effect, visual analog pain scores, opioid consumption, demands, deliveries, and side effects on an opioid-related symptom distress scale were recorded. Groups were well matched for age, weight, and sex. There were no significant differences between groups in time to effect, PCA usage, pain scores or side effects other than the occurrence of nausea, which was lower for the combination group in 1 visit. Further studies are needed to explore the potential of different potency ratios and opioid combinations to achieve rapid and long-lasting pain control.
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 | 0.004 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.006 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.008 | 0.002 |
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".