Auricular acupuncture for pain relief after ambulatory knee surgery: a randomized trial
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Auricular acupuncture is a promising method for postoperative pain relief. However, there is no evidence for its use after ambulatory surgery. Our aim was to test whether auricular acupuncture is better than invasive needle control for complementary analgesia after ambulatory knee surgery. METHODS: One hundred and twenty patients undergoing ambulatory arthroscopic knee surgery under standardized general anesthesia were randomly assigned to receive auricular acupuncture or a control procedure. Fixed indwelling acupuncture needles were inserted before surgery and retained in situ until the following morning. Postoperative rescue analgesia was directed to achieve pain intensity less than 40 mm on a 100-mm visual analogue scale. The primary outcome measure was the postoperative requirement for ibuprofen between surgery and examination the following morning. RESULTS: Intention-to-treat analysis showed that patients from the control group (n = 59) required more ibuprofen than patients from the auricular acupuncture group (n = 61): median (interquartile range) 600 (200-800) v. 200 (0-600) mg (p = 0.012). Pain intensity on a visual analogue scale was similar in both groups at all time points registered. The majority of patients in both groups believed that they had received true acupuncture and wanted to repeat it in future. INTERPRETATION: Auricular acupuncture reduced the requirement for ibuprofen after ambulatory knee surgery relative to an invasive needle control procedure.
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 | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 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".