The Use of Dexamethasone to Reduce Pain After Tonsillectomy in Adults: A Double‐Blind Prospective Randomized Trial
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVES/HYPOTHESIS: To determine the effectiveness of dexamethasone to reduce pain after tonsillectomy in adults by at least 13 mm on the visual analogue scale. The secondary objective was to reduce the use of narcotics by at least 20%. STUDY DESIGN: This multicentric study is a prospective double-blind randomized controlled trial. METHODS: A total of 102 patients were enrolled and received a 4-day trial either of dexamethasone in decreasing doses or placebo. The patients were asked to note the level of pain on the visual analogue scale daily for 7 days. They also had to record their consumption of analgesic and any eventual side effects. RESULTS: There were no statistically or clinically significant differences between the two groups for the level of pain noted on the visual analogue scale for the first 4 and 7 days. There were no statistical differences for the consumption of hydromorphone between the two groups. CONCLUSION: We cannot recommend the use of dexamethasone on a routine basis following tonsillectomy in adults for the reduction of pain or narcotics consumption.
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 | 0.004 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".