The Dose-Response Relationship for Clonidine Added to a Postoperative Continuous Epidural Infusion of Ropivacaine in Children
Bibliographic record
Abstract
UNLABELLED: Epidurally administered clonidine enhances the quality and duration of postoperative analgesia when it is used as an adjunct to local anesthetics in children. We investigated the dose-response relationship for epidural clonidine when added to a continuous postoperative epidural infusion of ropivacaine. By use of an observer-blinded design, 55 pediatric patients (1-4 yr old) were randomly given a postoperative epidural infusion of plain ropivacaine 0.1% 0.2 mg. kg(-1). h(-1) (Group R), ropivacaine 0.08% 0.16 mg. kg(-1). h(-1) plus clonidine 0.04 microg. kg(-1). h(-1) (Group RC1), ropivacaine 0.08% 0.16 mg. kg(-1). h(-1) plus clonidine 0.08 microg. kg(-1). h(-1) (Group RC2), or ropivacaine 0.08% 0.16 mg. kg(-1). h(-1) plus clonidine 0.12 microg. kg(-1). h(-1) (Group RC3). A clear dose-response relationship could be identified for a continuous infusion of epidural clonidine, with clonidine dosages in the 0.08-0.12 microg. kg(-1). h(-1) range providing improved postoperative analgesia (reduced Children's Hospital of Eastern Ontario pain score, increased time to first supplemental analgesic demand, and a reduced total number of doses of supplemental analgesics during the first 48 h after surgery). Analgesia was improved without any signs of increased sedation or other side effects. The adjunct use of epidural clonidine in the dosage range of 0.08-0.12 microg. kg(-1). h(-1) appears effective and safe for use in children. IMPLICATIONS: The addition of clonidine (0.08-0.12 microg.kg(-1).h(-1))to a continuous epidural infusion of ropivacaine was found to improve postoperative pain relief in children. No clinically significant signs of sedation or other side effects were observed.
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 | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| 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) | 0.000 | 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".