MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

A Randomized Controlled Trial Comparing Acetaminophen plus Ibuprofen Versus Acetaminophen plus Codeine plus Caffeine after Outpatient General Surgery

2007· article· en· W2128412346 on OpenAlexaff
Alexandra Mitchell, Sander Veldhuyzen van Zanten, Karen Inglis, Geoffrey A. Porter

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of the American College of Surgeons · 2007
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicPain Management and Opioid Use
Canadian institutionsUniversity of AlbertaQueen Elizabeth II Health Sciences CentreDalhousie University
FundersDartmouth College
KeywordsMedicineAcetaminophenVisual analogue scaleIbuprofenCodeineAnesthesiaRandomized controlled trialAnalgesicSurgeryMorphinePharmacology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.007
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Randomized trial · Consensus signal: Randomized trial
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.009
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0070.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0060.003
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.027
GPT teacher head0.282
Teacher spread0.255 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

Study designRandomized trial
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations70
Published2007
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of the American College of SurgeonsSame topicPain Management and Opioid UseFrench-language works237,207