Comparison of preemptive intravenous paracetamol and caudal block in terms of analgesic and hemodynamic parameters in children Çocuklarda Analjezik ve hemodinamik parametreler açisindan preemptif intravenöz parasetamol ve kaudal bloğun karşilaştirilmasi
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Objectives: Paracetamol has a widespread use for fever and symptomatic relief of pain in children. The aim of this study was to compare analgesic effects of preemptive intravenous (i.v.) paracetamol, and caudal block with levobupivacaine. Materials and methods: A total of 60 children with ASA I-II physical status, aged 5-15 years and undergoing inguinal hernia repair, were randomly allocated to three groups so that each group contained 20 patients. Group P children received i.v. 15mg/kg paracetamol. Group C received only caudal block with levobupivacaine, and Group PC received both i.v. paracetamol, and caudal block with levobupivacaine. Pain level assessed by modified East ern Ontario Children’s Hospital pain scale (mCHEOPs), sedation status by Ramsey sedation scale at postoperative 5, 15, 30 min and 1,3, and 6 th hours. Results: No significant differences were found in age, gender distribution, body weight, ASA status, type and duration of surgery between three groups (p>0.05). Although significant difference were found in mCHEOPs scores within groups by repeated measures, no difference of pain scores was observed between three groups (p>0.05). There were no significant differences in the he modynamic parameters (heart rate, blood pressure) both within groups and between groups (p>0.05). Conclusions: Preemptive intravenous paracetamol had similar analgesic effects compared with caudal block with levobupivacaine with regard to postoperative pain scores in children undergoing inguinal hernia repair. No hemodynamic or other adverse effects were observed with intravenous paracetamol. J Clin Exp Invest 2012; 3(2): 202-208
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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".