Changing patients’ position in bed after non-emergency coronary angiography reduced back pain
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Chair SY, Taylor-Piliae RE, Lam G, et al . Effect of positioning on back pain after coronary angiography. J Adv Nurs 2003;42:470–8.[OpenUrl][1][CrossRef][2][PubMed][3][Web of Science][4] Q In patients who have had non-emergency coronary angiography (CATH), does changing their position in bed reduce back pain without increasing the incidence of bleeding from the catheter insertion site? ### ![Graphic][5] Design: randomised controlled trial. ### ![Graphic][6] Allocation: unclear. ### ![Graphic][7] Blinding: unblinded. ### ![Graphic][8] Follow up period: ⩽24 hours. ### ![Graphic][9] Setting: 2 public hospitals in Hong Kong, China. ### ![Graphic][10] Patients: 420 patients who had received non-emergency CATH. Exclusion criteria included non-Chinese patients, non-femoral approach for the procedure, known bleeding disorders, development of bleeding at the catheter insertion site before sheath removal, presence of back pain before procedure, systolic blood pressure >190 mm Hg or diastolic blood pressure >110 mm Hg, age <18 years, and complications during the procedure. 419 patients (mean age 62 y, 67% men) completed … [1]: {openurl}?query=rft.jtitle%253DJournal%2Bof%2Badvanced%2Bnursing%26rft.stitle%253DJ%2BAdv%2BNurs%26rft.aulast%253DChair%26rft.auinit1%253DS.%2BY.%26rft.volume%253D42%26rft.issue%253D5%26rft.spage%253D470%26rft.epage%253D478%26rft.atitle%253DEffect%2Bof%2Bpositioning%2Bon%2Bback%2Bpain%2Bafter%2Bcoronary%2Bangiography.%26rft_id%253Dinfo%253Adoi%252F10.1046%252Fj.1365-2648.2003.02646.x%26rft_id%253Dinfo%253Apmid%252F12752867%26rft.genre%253Darticle%26rft_val_fmt%253Dinfo%253Aofi%252Ffmt%253Akev%253Amtx%253Ajournal%26ctx_ver%253DZ39.88-2004%26url_ver%253DZ39.88-2004%26url_ctx_fmt%253Dinfo%253Aofi%252Ffmt%253Akev%253Amtx%253Actx [2]: /lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.1046/j.1365-2648.2003.02646.x&link_type=DOI [3]: /lookup/external-ref?access_num=12752867&link_type=MED&atom=%2Febnurs%2F7%2F1%2F19.atom [4]: /lookup/external-ref?access_num=000182779800011&link_type=ISI [5]: /embed/inline-graphic-1.gif [6]: /embed/inline-graphic-2.gif [7]: /embed/inline-graphic-3.gif [8]: /embed/inline-graphic-4.gif [9]: /embed/inline-graphic-5.gif [10]: /embed/inline-graphic-6.gif
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 | 0.010 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.021 | 0.001 |
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.
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".