Effect of positioning on back pain after coronary angiography
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Coronary angiography is a routine cardiac diagnostic procedure in Hong Kong. Patients are restricted to bedrest after the procedure due to potential vascular complications from using a femoral approach. Many patients are required to remain on bedrest for up to 24 hours after the procedure. The effects of reducing this bedrest time is still under investigation. In the meantime, nursing interventions aimed at decreasing patient discomfort due to prolonged bedrest are feasible to implement. AIMS: The aims of this study were to evaluate the severity of back pain related to bedrest duration after coronary angiography and to compare the effects of changing patients' position in bed on their perceptions of back pain and on vascular complications. METHODS: An experimental design was used, with patients randomly assigned either to a control or experimental group. The control group received the usual care, remaining supine and flat for 8-24 hours, with the affected leg straight. The experimental group changed their body position hourly, varying between supine, right side-lying, and left side-lying during the first 7 hours after coronary angiography. RESULTS: A total of 419 patients participated in the study (control, n = 213; experimental, n = 206). Regardless of group assignment, back pain intensity increased with longer time on bedrest. In addition, the control group reported higher levels of pain at all five assessment times. Vascular complications in terms of bleeding at the femoral site were not significantly different between the control and experimental groups. CONCLUSION: The study findings suggest that patients may be able safely to change their position in bed earlier in the post-coronary angiography period than currently recommended in practice protocols. Changing position in bed may also reduce back pain, promote physical comfort, and possibly reduce patients' negative feelings toward coronary angiography.
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 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".