MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2169051208 · doi:10.1503/cmaj.140907

Oral administration of morphine versus ibuprofen to manage postfracture pain in children: a randomized trial

2014· article· en· W2169051208 on OpenAlexaffvenueabout
Naveen Poonai, Gina Bhullar, Kangrui Lin, A Papini, David Mainprize, Jocelyn Howard, John Teefy, Michelle Bale, Cindy Langford, Rodrick Lim, Larry Stitt, Michael Rieder, Samina Ali

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Medical Association Journal · 2014
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicPediatric Pain Management Techniques
Canadian institutionsChildren's Hospital of Western OntarioLondon Health Sciences CentreWomen and Children’s Health Research InstituteUniversity of AlbertaWestern University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsIbuprofenMedicineMorphineAnesthesiaConfidence intervalRandomized controlled trialEmergency departmentCodeineAnalgesicSurgeryInternal medicinePharmacology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Recent warnings from Health Canada regarding codeine for children have led to increased use of nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs and morphine for common injuries such as fractures. Our objective was to determine whether morphine administered orally has superior efficacy to ibuprofen in fracture-related pain. METHODS: We used a parallel group, randomized, blinded superiority design. Children who presented to the emergency department with an uncomplicated extremity fracture were randomly assigned to receive either morphine (0.5 mg/kg orally) or ibuprofen (10 mg/kg) for 24 hours after discharge. Our primary outcome was the change in pain score using the Faces Pain Scale - Revised (FPS-R). Participants were asked to record pain scores immediately before and 30 minutes after receiving each dose. RESULTS: We analyzed data from 66 participants in the morphine group and 68 participants in the ibuprofen group. For both morphine and ibuprofen, we found a reduction in pain scores (mean pre-post difference ± standard deviation for dose 1: morphine 1.5 ± 1.2, ibuprofen 1.3 ± 1.0, between-group difference [δ] 0.2 [95% confidence interval (CI) -0.2 to 0.6]; dose 2: morphine 1.3 ± 1.3, ibuprofen 1.3 ± 0.9, δ 0 [95% CI -0.4 to 0.4]; dose 3: morphine 1.3 ± 1.4, ibuprofen 1.4 ± 1.1, δ -0.1 [95% CI -0.7 to 0.4]; and dose 4: morphine 1.5 ± 1.4, ibuprofen 1.1 ± 1.2, δ 0.4 [95% CI -0.2 to 1.1]). We found no significant differences in the change in pain scores between morphine and ibuprofen between groups at any of the 4 time points (p = 0.6). Participants in the morphine group had significantly more adverse effects than those in the ibuprofen group (56.1% v. 30.9%, p < 0.01). INTERPRETATION: We found no significant difference in analgesic efficacy between orally administered morphine and ibuprofen. However, morphine was associated with a significantly greater number of adverse effects. Our results suggest that ibuprofen remains safe and effective for outpatient pain management in children with uncomplicated fractures. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov, no. NCT01690780.

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)0.014
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.024
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch
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 score0.394
Threshold uncertainty score0.984

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0140.024
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.006
GPT teacher head0.266
Teacher spread0.260 · 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

Citations129
Published2014
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Medical Association JournalSame topicPediatric Pain Management TechniquesFrench-language works237,207