Perception of pain following rectal administration of morphine in children: a comparison of a gel and a solution
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Rectal administration of morphine is one possible route of delivery in children. The aim of this study was to determine the pain experience during rectal administration of two different morphine preparations. METHODS: The acceptance of the pain of rectal administration of morphine for premedication was studied in 120 children. Children were randomized to receive either morphine solution in saline (0.2 mg.kg(-1), 1 mg.ml(-1)) or morphine gel (0.2 mg.kg(-1), 1 mg.ml(-1)) with an adjusted pH for rectal use in a double-blind fashion. Children were stratified into three groups according to age (1-2, 3-6, and 7-10 years). Pain was assessed with the Children's Hospital of Eastern Ontario Pain Scale, the McGrath Facial Affective Scale, or the visual analogue scale, depending on the age group. RESULTS: The overall pain scores in all age groups were low. Children aged 1-2 years (P < 0.01) and 3-6 years (P < 0.05) had significantly less pain when morphine was administered as a gel than a solution. The difference in pain experience between the two forms was not significant in the age group of 7-10 years. CONCLUSION: The results indicate that most of the children tolerated rectal administration of morphine well in terms of pain experience, in both gel and solution form. The morphine gel, intended for rectal use appears to be the preparation of choice in children aged 1-6 years.
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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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 | 0.000 |
| 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".