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 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 | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 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) | 0.001 | 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 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".