Ondansetron does not Modify Emergence Agitation in Children
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In this prospective, placebo-controlled study, we evaluated the effect of prophylactic ondansetron therapy on emergence agitation of children who underwent minor surgery below the umbilicus. Seventy children aged one to six years and American Society of Anesthesiologists physical status I were studied. Children were premedicated with midazolam rectally and were randomly assigned to receive either ondansetron (Group O) or placebo (Group P) in combination with caudal anaesthesia. Children in Group O received intravenous ondansetron (0.1 mg/kg for children weighing < 40 kg, 4 mg for children weighing > 40 kg) and Group P (n = 35) received normal saline 2 ml following anaesthesia induction with sevoflurane. Airway management was provided with LMA-Proseal without muscle relaxation and anaesthesia maintenance was provided with a 60:40 N2O:O2 mixture and sevoflurane. Emergence agitation was evaluated with a ten point scale and pain level was assessed every 10 minutes for the first 30 minutes after admission to the recovery room. There were no significant differences between the placebo and ondansetron groups with respect to demographic, anaesthetic and surgical details. Incidences of emergence agitation in ondansetron and placebo groups were similar (32.4% and 30.3% at 10 minutes respectively). Mean modified Children's Hospital of Eastern Ontario pain scale scores and mean ten-point scale scores and emergence agitation incidences decreased similarly after 10 minutes in both groups. Ready time for discharge was similar between the groups. Agitated patients had significantly increased ready time for discharge compared to non-agitated patients (P = 0.001). Prophylactic intravenous ondansetron administration does not reduce emergence agitation comparing to placebo after sevoflurane anaesthesia.
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) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".