The Use of Topical Ketorolac 0.5% for Pain Relief Following Cyclophotocoagulation
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE: Laser cycloablation is frequently used for glaucoma palliation. Although usually successful, the procedure is often accompanied by pain. The purpose of this prospective, randomized study was to study topical ketorolac for the amelioration of pain following cycloablation. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Thirty-six patients requiring a cyclodestructive procedure were randomized into two groups. Each group received a standardized cycloablative laser procedure and routine postoperative drops. Patients were randomized to receive additional topical ketorolac or not. Patients indicated by a mark on a standardized 100-mm line their subjective experience of pain. RESULTS: There were no differences between the patient groups regarding preoperative demographic factors. There was a significant difference between the groups in the average and daily pain rating, with the ketorolac therapy group reporting significantly less pain. CONCLUSION: The addition of topical ketorolac significantly lessened the pain reported by patients following a cyclodestructive laser procedure.
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 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".