The Effect of Single-Dose Propofol Injection on Pain and Quality of Life in Chronic Daily Headache: A Randomized, Double-Blind, Controlled Trial
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: On the basis of a small number of case studies, IV propofol has been advocated for the treatment of chronic daily headache (CDH). There has been no randomized controlled trial of this therapy. Our objective in this randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial was to determine whether a single IV dose of propofol 2.4 mg/kg results in clinically significant reduction in disability or pain in CDH for the next 30 days. METHODS: Eligible adults with CDH received either active treatment with IV propofol infusion (n = 20) or active placebo of IV midazolam (n = 20). The main outcome measures were (a) Headache Disability Inventory (HDI) at 30 days posttreatment, (b) Headache Index, a summary measure of headache intensity over the 30-day period, and (c) analgesic consumption measured as the Medication Quantification Scale version III. RESULTS: Propofol reduced the HDI by 9.47 points (sd 14.1) at 30 days after injection (P = 0.009), but this is a smaller reduction in headache-related disability than that which the developers of the HDI regard as clinically significant. There was no statistically significant change in HDI for the control group. There were no significant within- or between-group reductions in mean pain intensity as measured by the Headache Index or medication use as measured by the Medication Quantification Scale version III in either group. CONCLUSIONS: A single IV infusion of propofol 2.4 mg/kg produces a statistically significant, but not clinically meaningful, reduction in disability from CDH 30 days after infusion and does not reduce pain intensity or analgesic use. This study does not support this regimen of IV propofol for clinical management of CDH.
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) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.005 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.009 | 0.001 |
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".