Safety and efficacy of preoperative administration of meloxicam, compared with that of ketoprofen and butorphanol in dogs undergoing abdominal surgery
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To compare the safety and efficacy of preoperative administration of meloxicam with that of ketoprofen and butorphanol in dogs undergoing abdominal surgery. ANIMALS: 36 dogs undergoing laparotomy, splenectomy, or cystotomy. PROCEDURE: Dogs were randomly assigned to 1 of 3 groups. In the first part of the study, dogs were given a single dose of meloxicam, ketoprofen, or a placebo, and buccal mucosal bleeding times were measured. In the second part of the study, dogs were given meloxicam, ketoprofen, or butorphanol prior to surgery. Dogs in the butorphanol group received a second dose immediately after surgery. Pain scores (1 to 10) were assigned hourly for 20 hours after surgery and used to determine an overall efficacy score for each dog. Dogs with a pain score > or =3 were given oxymorphone for pain. Dogs were euthanatized 8 days after surgery, and gross and histologic examinations of the liver, kidneys, and gastrointestinal tract were conducted. RESULTS: Overall efficacy was rated as good or excellent in 9 of the 12 dogs that received meloxicam, compared with 9 of the 12 dogs that received ketoprofen and only 1 of the 12 dogs that received butorphanol. No clinically important hematologic, biochemical, or pathologic abnormalities were detected. CONCLUSIONS AND CLINICAL RELEVANCE: Results suggest that preoperative administration of meloxicam is a safe and effective method of controlling postoperative pain for 20 hours in dogs undergoing abdominal surgery; the analgesic effects of meloxicam were comparable to those of ketoprofen and superior to those of butorphanol.
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 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".