MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Caudal additives for postoperative pain management in children: S(+)‐ketamine and neostigmine

2004· article· en· W2047909984 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Nicole Almenräder, Maurizio Passariello, Giuseppe D'amico, Roberta Haiberger, P Pietropaoli

Bibliographic record

VenuePediatric Anesthesia · 2004
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicAnesthesia and Sedative Agents
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsKetamineMedicineNeostigmineAnesthesiaSedationAnalgesicVomitingSurgery

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: The aim of the present pilot study was to compare the analgesic efficacy of S(+)-ketamine either alone or in combination with neostigmine for caudal blockade in pediatric surgery. METHODS: A total of 40 children were randomly assigned to receive after induction of general anesthesia either caudal S(+)-ketamine 1 mg.kg(-1) (group K, n = 20) or caudal S (+)-ketamine 0.5 mg.kg(-1) plus neostigmine 10 microg.kg(-1) (group KN, n = 20). Anesthesia was maintained with sevoflurane and a laryngeal mask airway (LMA), no additional analgesics were administered. Postoperative pain and sedation were assessed by the Children's Hospital of Eastern Ontario Pain Score and Ramsay scale for 24 h. RESULTS: No statistical difference in duration of analgesia and sedation was found. Mean duration of postoperative analgesia was 18 +/- 9.4 h in group K and 21.8 +/- 6.7 h in group KN. There was a significantly higher incidence of postoperative vomiting after administration of caudal ketamine with neostigmine (30% group KN Vs 0% group K; P < 0.05). CONCLUSIONS: This pilot study demonstrates equianalgesic effects on postoperative pain relief in children with both caudal S(+)-ketamine 1 mg.kg(-1) and caudal S(+)-ketamine 0.5 mg.kg(-1) plus neostigmine 10 microg.kg(-1). Further studies are required to confirm adoption of caudal neostigmine into routine clinical practice.

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)0.000
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 score0.015
Threshold uncertainty score0.836

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
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 head0.009
GPT teacher head0.242
Teacher spread0.233 · 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

Citations31
Published2004
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePediatric AnesthesiaSame topicAnesthesia and Sedative AgentsFrench-language works237,207