MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2073304562 · doi:10.1111/coa.12106

A 2013 updated systematic review & meta‐analysis of 36 randomized controlled trials; no apparent effects of non steroidal anti‐inflammatory agents on the risk of bleeding after tonsillectomy

2013· review· en· W2073304562 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueClinical Otolaryngology · 2013
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicObstructive Sleep Apnea Research
Canadian institutionsMcMaster UniversityHospital for Sick ChildrenSickKids FoundationWestern University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineTonsillectomyPlaceboOdds ratioMeta-analysisPerioperativeAdverse effectRandomized controlled trialNauseaAnesthesiaOpioidVomitingInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Although the literature suggests that non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) are effective in controlling post-operative pain in the paediatric population, physicians have been reluctant to utilise these medications after tonsillectomy due to concerns of increased bleeding rates. While many surgeons prescribe opioid analgesics postoperatively, these are associated with a number of potential adverse side-effects including nausea, vomiting, constipation, excessive sedation and respiratory compromise. OBJECTIVE OF REVIEW: To compare bleeding rates and severity between recipients of NSAIDs versus placebo or opioid analgesics for tonsillectomy. SEARCH STRATEGY: Two authors independently searched electronic databases including PubMed, OVID, EMBASE and Cochrane Review from inception to July 2012. The keywords used included: Adenotonsillectomy, Tonsillectomy, Analgesia, Bleeding, Perioperative and Postoperative. These were then combined in various combinations with specific NSAIDs. EVALUATION METHOD: A systematic review and meta-analysis of all randomised control trials comparing bleeding rates and severity between NSAIDs versus placebo or opioids post-tonsillectomy. RESULTS: A total of 36 studies met our inclusion criteria including 1747 children and 1446 adults. When all of the studies were combined in a meta-analysis using the most severe outcome, there was no increased risk of bleeding in those using NSAIDs after tonsillectomy. Use of NSAIDs in general [1.30 (0.90-1.88)] or in children [1.06 (0.65-1.74)] was not associated with increased risk of bleeding in general, most severe bleeding, secondary haemorrhage, readmission or need of reoperation due to bleeding. Similarly, there was no increased bleeding risk for specific NSAIDs in adults. In the studies looking at paediatric subjects, the overall odds ratio of bleeding was even lower than in the general population and not significant. This result is based on 18 studies, six of which had zero outcomes in either treatment arm. Similar to the general population analysis, there was no significant difference in any of the subanalyses: bleeds treated with reoperation, readmission or bleeds in children that could be managed conservatively. There were also no significant differences in the subanalyses of individual NSAIDs. Similarly, there was no significant difference in rates of bleeding in the subanalysis of studies that gave NSAIDs multiple times, for instance, both before and after surgery. CONCLUSIONS: These results suggest that NSAIDs can be considered as a safe method of analgesia among children undergoing tonsillectomy.

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.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.043
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.093
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch, Meta-epidemiology (narrow), Meta-epidemiology (broad), Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesMetaresearch, Meta-epidemiology (broad)
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Meta-analysis · Consensus signal: Meta-analysis
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.382
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0430.093
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0960.032
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.101
GPT teacher head0.427
Teacher spread0.326 · 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