MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2055518694 · doi:10.1213/ane.0b013e3181c30f78

A Randomized, Double-Blind, Placebo-Controlled Trial of Epidural Morphine Analgesia After Vaginal Delivery

2009· article· en· W2055518694 on OpenAlexaff
Alison Macarthur, Charles Imarengiaye, Luminita Tureanu, Kristi Downey

Bibliographic record

VenueAnesthesia & Analgesia · 2009
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicAnesthesia and Pain Management
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineMorphinePlaceboAnesthesiaSalineVaginal deliveryAnalgesicRandomized controlled trialConfidence intervalPregnancySurgeryInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Pain after vaginal delivery can interfere with the activities of daily living. We hypothesized that epidural medication administered after delivery would be of benefit for acute postpartum pain management. The objective of this study was to assess whether epidural morphine after vaginal delivery would reduce the analgesic requirements for perineal pain. METHODS: This randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial included 228 parturients who received epidural morphine, 2.5 mg, or epidural saline within 1 h of delivery. The primary outcome was the proportion of women who received additional analgesics in the first 24 h postpartum. We also evaluated the time to first request for analgesia, pain and satisfaction scores, and the incidence of side effects due to epidural morphine. RESULTS: The majority of the 228 women participating in the study were Caucasian, primiparous patients >30 yr old. The proportion of women requiring additional analgesics was less among those who received epidural morphine (8 of 113; 7%) compared with saline (37 of 115; 32%), regardless of the degree of perineal trauma (RR = 0.22, 95% CI: 0.12-0.41). The relative risk reduction in receiving additional analgesics for primiparous patients receiving epidural morphine compared with saline was 0.25 (95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.13-0.49) and for multiparous women was 0.12 (95% CI: 0.02-0.63). The time to first request for analgesics was later for those who received morphine (mean 22.9 h, 95% CI: 22.2-23.7) compared with saline (mean 18.9 h, 95% CI: 17.4-20.4) (P < 0.0001). The side-effect incidence (pruritus, nausea and vomiting, and sedation) was not different between the 2 groups. CONCLUSION: There was a 78% reduction in analgesic requirements in women given epidural morphine after vaginal delivery compared with placebo for both primiparous and multiparous patients. Women who receive epidural labor analgesia for vaginal deliveries and stay in the hospital for 24 h after delivery may benefit from postpartum administration of epidural morphine.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.006
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Randomized trial · Consensus signal: Randomized trial
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.009
Threshold uncertainty score0.030

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.006
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0050.002
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.002
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0030.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0090.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.019
GPT teacher head0.272
Teacher spread0.253 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

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

Citations21
Published2009
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAnesthesia & AnalgesiaSame topicAnesthesia and Pain ManagementFrench-language works237,207