Injection pain of propofol in children: A comparison of two formulations without added lidocaine
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Propofol emulsion in medium and long-chain triglycerides (MCT/LCT) has been reported to cause less injection pain than other propofol solutions in adult studies. The aim of this study was to compare the injection pain of two different propofol emulsions using two different pain scales on the pediatric population. MATERIALS AND METHODS: 100 children scheduled for general anesthesia were divided into two groups. Patients were randomly assigned to receive propofol LCT or propofol MCT/LCT. Assessment and evaluation of the Ontario Children's Hospital Pain Scale (mCHEOPS) and the Wong-Baker Faces Scale (WBFS) were performed at the start of the injection until the patients lose consciousness. RESULTS: There were no significant differences between groups in terms of demographic data. According to the mCHEOPS scale, the pain incidence of propofol LCT was 5%, whereas for propofol MCT/LCT it was 15% (P < 0.05). According to the WBFS Pain Scale, the pain incidence of propofol LCT was 17%, whereas for propofol MCT/LCT it was 21% (P > 0.05). CONCLUSIONS: Propofol MCT/LCT does not decrease injection pain; contrary to the general assumption, it causes more pain than propofol LCT in children.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.007 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
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 teacher head, 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".