Naproxen versus Acetaminophen for Therapy of Soft Tissue Injuries to the Ankle in Children
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Musculoskeletal (MSK) ankle injuries cause significant morbidity in ambulatory pediatric populations. No optimal pharmacotherapy is available. OBJECTIVE: To conduct a randomized, double-blind trial to compare 2 drug therapies for soft tissue injury of the ankle. METHODS: Patients (N = 77, aged 8-14 y, 61% male) with ankle injuries presenting to a regional pediatric emergency department were assigned to receive either acetaminophen (15 mg/kg 4 times a day) or naproxen (5 mg/kg 4 times a day) in a double-blind fashion on a routine basis for a 5 day period. On days 0 and 7, patients rated their degree of disability and pain on weight bearing using a 10 cm visual analog scale developed for this study. In addition, they were examined by a physician who rated pain, tenderness on palpation, and swelling using a 4 point scale. There were 3 follow-up telephone calls on days 3, 14, and 21. Adherence was evaluated by self-report and pill count. RESULTS: Both the acetaminophen and naproxen groups had significant improvement in degree of disability and pain from day 0 to day 7. There was no statistically significant difference in outcome between the 2 groups by patient self-evaluation or physician assessment. There also was no significant difference in adverse event rates between the 2 groups, and the majority of patients in both groups felt that the medication was helpful. CONCLUSIONS: No significant difference in efficacy of pain control or improvement of disability between the naproxen and acetaminophen groups suggests no preferential advantage for naproxen over acetaminophen for MSK injuries when given on a regular basis, with concurrent supportive treatment. Possible differential benefit from intermittent therapy needs to be evaluated among children with ankle injury.
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 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".