MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2326174208 · doi:10.1097/eja.0000000000000190

The effect of triple vs. double nonopioid therapy on postoperative pain and functional outcome after abdominal hysterectomy

2014· article· en· W2326174208 on OpenAlexafffund
Ian Gilron, Dongsheng Tu, Deborah Dumerton-Shore, D. W. Scott, Rachel Rooney, Michael McGrath, Elizabeth Orr

Bibliographic record

VenueEuropean Journal of Anaesthesiology · 2014
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicAnesthesia and Pain Management
Canadian institutionsQueen's University
FundersCanadian Institutes of Health Research
KeywordsMedicineAnesthesiaGabapentinAnalgesicAcetaminophenRegimenPerioperativeOpioidRandomized controlled trialSurgeryInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Movement-evoked pain is more severe than pain at rest and is likely to interfere more with functional recovery after surgery. OBJECTIVE: To compare triple vs. double nonopioid perioperative analgesic regimens in women undergoing abdominal hysterectomy. DESIGN: A randomised, parallel design, double-blind controlled trial. SETTING: A single-centre trial. Study period from November 2009 to July 2013. PATIENTS: Adults (>18 years) of American Society of Anesthesiologists' status 1 to 2 scheduled for abdominal hysterectomy. INTERVENTIONS: Patients were randomised to one of four study treatment groups: acetaminophen, meloxicam and gabapentin (AMG); acetaminophen and meloxicam; acetaminophen and gabapentin; and meloxicam and gabapentin. In addition to intravenous patient-controlled opioid analgesia, study treatments were administered for 48 h, starting 1 h preoperatively. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: The primary outcome was cough-evoked pain. Secondary outcomes included pain at rest, during sitting and peak expiration, opioid consumption, side effects, peak expiratory flow rate, timed up and go test (TUG), and modified Brief Pain Inventory (mBPI). RESULTS: Interim analysis indicated a minimal chance of demonstrating superiority of the triple regimen group over all three double regimen groups if the trial were to be recruited to planned sample size. Thus, the trial was prematurely terminated for futility. All four analgesic regimens were well tolerated. Exploratory analyses revealed consistent significant negative correlations between pain and TUG and between pain and interference with activity, walking and sleep. CONCLUSION: This trial failed to demonstrate substantial benefits with the addition of a third nonopioid analgesic to three different double-drug regimens. Further research is needed that will more definitively support expanding multimodal analgesic practices. Our results demonstrate consistent correlations between evoked pain and functional outcomes further emphasising the need for improved analgesic regimens that will accelerate postsurgical functional recovery. TRIAL REGISTRATION: International Standard Randomised Controlled Trial Number Register 12723675.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.005
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.289
Threshold uncertainty score0.322

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0050.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.014
GPT teacher head0.244
Teacher spread0.230 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations13
Published2014
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueEuropean Journal of AnaesthesiologySame topicAnesthesia and Pain ManagementFrench-language works237,207