Effects of low-dose intramuscular ketorolac on experimental pain in the masseter muscle of healthy women.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
AIMS: To investigate the effect of a low dose of intramuscular (im) ketorolac compared with lidocaine (LA) in a double-blinded, randomized, and controlled trial. METHODS: Twelve healthy women participated in three sessions and received two injections into their right masseter muscle per session. The first injections contained hypertonic saline (HS, 5% in 0.2 mL) to induce muscle pain. The second injections were given 30 minutes later and contained, together with HS, either ketorolac (3 mg in 0.2 mL), LA (2% lidocaine in 0.2 ml), or HS alone (control). HS-evoked pain intensity was scored on a 0 to 10 electronic visual analog scale (VAS) measuring peak, duration, and area under the curve (AUC). Pressure pain thresholds (PPT), pressure pain tolerance levels (PPTOL), and pain on palpation (POP) were determined bilaterally on the masseter muscle before and 5, 15, and 25 minutes after the injections. Maximum jaw opening (MJO) was measured at baseline and every 10 minutes after. McGill Pain Questionnaire (MPQ) scores and the extent of the HS-evoked pain (pain drawings) were recorded at baseline, 2 minutes after the first and second injections, and every 10 minutes during the entire experimental session. RESULTS: There were no differences between the three sessions in HS-evoked pain measures from the first injection (P > .05). During the second injection, HS + LA demonstrated significantly lower VAS peak, duration, and AUC scores than control and HS + ketorolac (P < .001). In the HS + ketorolac session, the VAS AUC was significantly lower than in the control session (P < .005). The sessions had no main effect on PPT, PPTOL, POP, MJO, or pain drawings (P > .05). CONCLUSION: A low dose of im ketorolac has a significant and immediate analgesic effect on HS-evoked jaw muscle pain but significantly less than LA. A local anesthetic-like effect may be the underlying mechanism.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".