MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2409478096 · doi:10.1097/eja.0000000000000346

Preoperative celecoxib in noncardiac surgery

2016· review· en· W2409478096 on OpenAlexaff
James S. Khan, Clarita B. Margarido, P.J. Devereaux, Hance Clarke, Andrea McLellan, Stephen Choi

Bibliographic record

VenueEuropean Journal of Anaesthesiology · 2016
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicAnesthesia and Pain Management
Canadian institutionsHealth Sciences CentreUniversity of TorontoUniversity Health NetworkSunnybrook Health Science CentreMcMaster UniversityPopulation Health Research Institute
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineCelecoxibConfidence intervalNauseaAnalgesicAnesthesiaVomitingStrictly standardized mean differenceMeta-analysisMorphineMEDLINEPostoperative nausea and vomitingRandomized controlled trialClinical trialSurgeryInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Postoperative pain continues to be undertreated after noncardiac surgery. Preoperative analgesic administration may enhance postoperative analgesia. OBJECTIVE: To determine the effects of preoperative administration of celecoxib in noncardiac surgery on pain and postoperative outcomes. DESIGN: Systematic review and meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials. DATA SOURCES: MEDLINE, EMBASE, CENTRAL, CINHAL Web of Sciences and ProQuest databases were searched from inception to 2014. Reference lists of retrieved articles and grey literature were searched for additional trials. ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA: Articles were included if they enrolled patients of at least 18 years of age and randomised patients to receive celecoxib within 4 h of noncardiac surgery. Studies were excluded if they were animal studies, reviews/meta-analyses, did not report pain as an outcome or used epidural analgesia. RESULTS: Twenty trials met the eligibility criteria. Preoperative celecoxib in 14 studies (994 patients) amenable to meta-analysis demonstrated a significant decrease in 24-h parenteral morphine-equivalent consumption (mean difference -4.13 mg, 95% confidence interval -5.58 to -2.67, I = 94%). Eleven studies (755 patients) assessed postoperative pain scores at 24 h and found a significant decrease with celecoxib use [mean difference (on a 0-10 pain scale) -1.02, 95% confidence interval -1.54 to -0.50, I = 99%]. The risks of postoperative nausea and vomiting were also decreased by 44% (P = 0.01) and 38% (P = 0.03), respectively. Preoperative celecoxib did not improve patient satisfaction or length of recovery room stay, or increase intraoperative bleeding. Subgroup analyses indicated no difference between celecoxib 200 and 400 mg or between a single preoperative dose and continued postoperative dosing. CONCLUSION: Results of this study are limited by significant heterogeneity and inclusion of mainly small trials. However, there appears to be a slight to modest benefit of preoperative celecoxib on reducing postoperative morphine consumption, pain, nausea and vomiting.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.005
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.015
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.005
Threshold uncertainty score0.029

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0050.015
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0050.006
Bibliometrics0.0020.003
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0020.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

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 head0.051
GPT teacher head0.309
Teacher spread0.259 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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

Citations54
Published2016
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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