[Efficacy and complications of fentanyl intravenous infusions in postoperative pediatric patients].
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The aim of the study was to evaluate the efficacy and the incidence of complication in pediatric patients for laparotomy receiving continuous fentanyl infusion for postoperative pain. METHODS: We treated 21 children, including 9 male and 12 female, aged 1-4 years old with the median age 2.0 +/- 1.0 years. They received postoperative intravenous fentanyl infusion 1 microg +/- kg(-1) x hr(-1) for about 50 hrs. We assessed the level of pain by Children's Hospital of Eastern Ontario pain scale (CHEOPS), and evaluated the additional medication of analgetics and the adverse events such as vomiting, the decrease of respiratory rate or Sp(O2) depression defined as the need for supplemental oxygen to maintain Sp(O2) > 95% and sedation by visiting the patients twice par day. RESULTS: Adequate analgesia occurred in over 90% of patients with the average CHEOPS score of 6.4 +/- 0.2 points. The incidences of vomiting and deep sedation were 14.3% and 19.0%, respectively, but there was no incidence of desaturations and decrease of respiratory rate, and we have no need to ensure emergency airway patency. CONCLUSIONS: Intravenous fentanyl infusion for postoperative pain in pediatric patients after laparotomy is an effective and safe procedure with a few complications.
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 | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| 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) | 0.001 | 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".