Comparing the Efficacy and Adverse Effects of Tramadol and Sodum Diclofenac with pethedine in the Treatment of Renal Colic
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Background & aim: One of the choice treatments for pain relief in acute renal colic is administration of narcotics, but always the need for low-dose effects are felt difficulties. The aim of this study was to compare the efficacy of sodium diclofenac and pethedine hydrochloride with Tramadol to reduce the pain of acute renal colic. Methods: In this clinical trial study, 150 patients (15-65 years) with acute renal colic referred to Kashani hospital in Shahrekord were selected. The patients were randomly divided into 3 groups. The first group received 50mg tramadol intramuscular, the second group received 75mg D sodum iclofenac intramuscular and the third group (the evidence group) received 50 mg pethidin intramuscular. The pain severity was assessed before and then at 15, 30,60minutes after drug administration based on the McGill questionnaire. Data were analyzed with chi-square tests, ANOVA and Kruskal-Wallis tests. The pain severity of all parties on arrival to emergency ward and prior to the drug administration, and then 15, 30 and 60 min after the start of treatment were measured using a modified McGill questionnaire. Results: After drug administration (30.15 and 60 min), pain severity were decreased in all three groups. Minimum pain was seen in control where as the maximum pain was seen in tramadol group. Diclofenac have less side effects than pethedine (P<0.05). Conclusion: The finding showed that intramuscular Na Diclofenac due to its less adverse effects and more efficacy than tramadol is a suitable alternative to pethedine in treatment of acute renal colic. Key words: Pethedine, Tramadol, Diclofenac Na, Renal Colic
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 | 0.001 |
| 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) | 0.002 | 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".