A Randomized Controlled Trial Comparing Acetaminophen plus Ibuprofen Versus Acetaminophen plus Codeine plus Caffeine after Outpatient General Surgery
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Narcotics are used extensively in outpatient general surgery but are often poorly tolerated with variable efficacy. Acetaminophen combined with NSAIDs is a possible alternative. The objective of this study was to compare the efficacy of acetaminophen, codeine, and caffeine (Tylenol No. 3) with acetaminophen and ibuprofen for management of pain after outpatient general surgery procedures. STUDY DESIGN: A double-blind randomized controlled trial was performed in patients undergoing outpatient inguinal/umbilical/ventral hernia repair or laparoscopic cholecystectomy. Patients were randomized to receive acetaminophen plus codeine plus caffeine (Tylenol No. 3) or acetaminophen plus ibuprofen (AcIBU) 4 times daily for 7 days or until pain-free. Pain intensity, measured four times daily by visual analogue scale, was the primary outcome. Secondary end points included incidence of side effects, patient satisfaction, number of days until patient was pain-free, and use of alternative analgesia. RESULTS: One hundred forty-six patients were randomized (74 Tylenol No. 3 and 72 AcIBU), and 139 (95%) patients completed the study. No significant differences in mean or maximum daily visual analogue scale scores were identified between the 2 groups, except on postoperative day 2, when pain was improved in AcIBU patients (p = 0.025). During the entire week, mean visual analogue scale score was modestly lower in AcIBU patients (p = 0.018). More patients in the AcIBU group, compared with Tylenol No. 3, were satisfied with their analgesia (83% versus 64%, respectively; p = 0.02). There were more side effects with Tylenol No. 3 (57% versus 41%, p = 0.045), and the discontinuation rate was also higher in Tylenol No. 3-treated patients (11% versus 3%, p = 0.044). CONCLUSIONS: When compared with Tylenol No. 3, AcIBU was not an inferior analgesic and was associated with fewer side effects and higher patient satisfaction. AcIBU is an effective, low-cost, and safe alternative to codeine-based narcotic analgesia for outpatient general surgery procedures.
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 | 0.003 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.006 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.010 | 0.001 |
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".