A Comprehensive Clinical Study about Patching after Strabismus Surgery
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: Patching of the operative eye is occasionally used in pediatric strabismus surgery. The primary purpose of this study was to investigate the psychological and physiologic effects of patching after operation by multifactorial methods. METHODS: We analyzed the perioperative behaviors of 61 children with strabismus conducted from June 2012 to July 2013 in this prospective longitudinal study. The children were randomized into 2 groups. Patients in the patching group underwent postoperative patching and others received no patching. Main outcome measures included The Faces Pain Scale-Revised score or numerical rating scales score, Children's Hospital of Eastern Ontario Pain Scale (CHEOPS) score, crying time, and preoperative and postoperative physiologic parameters. RESULTS: Crying time was significantly longer in the patching group than in the no patching group, but self-report scores showed no difference in the groups. Repeated-measures analysis of variance on ranks revealed that postoperative CHEOPS score was lower in the no patching group than in the patching group, whereas no physiologic parameters were significantly different in the 2 groups. CONCLUSIONS: Patching is not necessary for reducing postoperative pain or the risk of infection in children undergoing strabismus surgery.
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 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".