MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2072117854 · doi:10.1185/03007995.2012.681035

Extended-release tramadol/paracetamol in moderate-to-severe pain: a randomized, placebo-controlled study in patients with acute low back pain

2012· article· en· W2072117854 on OpenAlexaff
Ben Lasko, Randy J. Levitt, K. D. Rainsford, Sylvie Bouchard, Anna Rozova, Sybil Robertson

Bibliographic record

VenueCurrent Medical Research and Opinion · 2012
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldVeterinary
TopicVeterinary Pharmacology and Anesthesia
Canadian institutionsLakeshore General HospitalMcGill UniversityManna Research
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicinePlaceboAnesthesiaTramadolDouble blindRandomized controlled trialClinical endpointClinical trialPlacebo-controlled studyLow back painAnalgesicSurgeryInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

OBJECTIVE: Combinations of oral analgesics may offer several potential benefits compared with an individual agent. The objective of this study was to investigate the efficacy and safety of an extended-release, twice-daily fixed combination of 75 mg tramadol/650 mg paracetamol (DDS-06C) in the treatment of moderate-to-severe pain, using acute low back pain as a model. RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS: In this phase III study, 277 patients with moderate-to-severe acute low back pain were randomized to 1-2 tablets of DDS-06C or placebo every 10-12 h for 2.5 days during the double-blind phase. Following the double-blind phase, patients had the option to continue for a 2.5-day open-label phase. CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION: Clinicaltrials.gov (Identifier: NCT00643383) MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: The primary end point was the sum of pain intensity differences (SPID) over the 50-h double-blind phase (SPID50). Secondary end points included total pain relief score over the 50-h double-blind phase (TOTPAR50), patient's global impression of medication, and SPID over the first 4 h. RESULTS: A statistically significant (p = 0.038) greater decrease in pain intensity was observed in the DDS-06C group (median SPID50: -6.0) versus placebo (median SPID50: -4.0). Greater pain relief was also observed in patients randomized to DDS-06C: the median TOTPAR50 was 13.0 for the DDS-06C group and 11.0 for placebo (p = 0.026). DDS-06C demonstrated statistically significant superior efficacy compared with placebo for the majority of the other secondary end points. Overall, 38% of patients treated with DDS-06C experienced at least one adverse event; the intensity was mild-to-moderate in 81% of cases. The most commonly reported adverse events (>5% of patients receiving DDS-06C) were nausea, dizziness, vomiting, and somnolence. CONCLUSIONS: Using acute low back pain, a model with a high degree of heterogeneity and intrinsic variability, DDS-06C was superior to placebo on measures of pain intensity and relief, and was well-tolerated.

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)0.002
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 score0.005
Threshold uncertainty score0.016

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0040.002
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.002
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0020.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0050.001

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 head0.074
GPT teacher head0.412
Teacher spread0.338 · 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
Published2012
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCurrent Medical Research and OpinionSame topicVeterinary Pharmacology and AnesthesiaFrench-language works237,207