Efficacy of intrauterine lignocaine plus vaginal misoprostol for pain relief in premenopausal women undergoing endometrial aspiration and ambulatory hysteroscopy
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To compare the effectiveness of a combination of intrauterine lignocaine and vaginal misoprostol in reducing pain at hysteroscopy and endometrial aspiration (EA). DESIGN: Prospective randomized trial (Canadian Task Force Classification I). SETTING: Tertiary care referral hospital. POPULATION: Forty-nine premenopausal women undergoing hysteroscopy plus EA. METHODS: Patients were randomized into misoprostol plus intrauterine lignocaine group (Group I) and only misoprostol group (Group II). MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Pain scores at hysteroscope insertion (T (time) 1), during and after hysteroscopy (T2, T3), during EA (T4), 15 minutes after the procedure (T5) and at discharge (T6). Satisfaction and procedure acceptability was assessed by a questionnaire. RESULTS: The mean age of patients in Group I and Group II was 35.4 +/- 8.6 years and 38.9 +/- 13.2 years, respectively. The mean pain scores in Group I were 23.6% lower at T2 and 27% lower at T4 when compared with Group II; the difference of latter being significant. CONCLUSION: A combination of intrauterine lignocaine plus vaginal misoprostol reduced the pain score in premenopausal women undergoing hysteroscopy and EA.
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) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".