Antibiotics for Post-Tonsillectomy Morbidity: Comparative Analysis of a Single Institutional Experience
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: We have conducted this study to evaluate the effect of antibiotics, whether oral or intravenous, compared to no antibiotic protocol on post-tonsillectomy morbidity. METHODS: A total of 270 patients aged 3 - 12 years were included in the study. Patients were assigned into three groups randomly; each group consisted of 90 patients. In the first group (group A), patients were given intravenous injections of ceftriaxone 50 mg/kg/24 hours in divided doses, the second group (group B) received oral co-amoxiclav (dose according to weight) for 5 days post-operatively, and in the third group, patients were not given antibiotics. Patients were evaluated for the incidence of any bleeding, number of days before resuming normal diet, incidence of nausea and vomiting, incidence of abdominal pain, frequency of analgesic use in the first week, and pain. RESULTS: Our study groups were comparable in age, gender, and weight. There were no statistically significant differences between our study groups with regard to the incidence of post-tonsillectomy bleeding, time relapsed to resume normal diet, and pain score scale. Incidence of nausea, vomiting, and abdominal pain was more in the oral antibiotic group, and it was statistically significant. CONCLUSION: We do not recommend the routine use of antibiotics in post-tonsillectomy period in pediatric age group and oral antibiotics prove to have worse outcome with regard to the incidence of nausea, vomiting, and abdominal pain, and these recommendations need to be evaluated by multicenter evaluation.
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) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".