Randomized clinical trial of psychological support and sleep adjuvant measures for postoperative sleep disturbance in patients undergoing oesophagectomy
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Major surgery such as oesophagectomy requires a postoperative stay in intensive care. Painful stimuli lead to sleep disturbance and impairment in quality of life. The aim of this study was to evaluate the effect of psychological counselling and sleep adjuvant measures on postoperative quality of sleep and quality of life. METHODS: This RCT was performed between January 2013 and October 2015. Patients undergoing oesophagectomy for cancer were randomized into one of four groups receiving: psychological counselling plus sleep adjuvant measures during the ICU stay; psychological counselling alone; sleep adjuvant measures alone during the ICU stay; or standard care. The primary endpoint was impairment in quality of life measured using the European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer C30-QL2 questionnaire between admission for surgery and discharge from hospital. The secondary endpoint was impairment in quality of sleep assessed by means of the Pittsburgh Sleep Quality Index between admission for surgery and hospital discharge. RESULTS: The local ethics committee approved the early termination of the study because of relevant changes in the ICU setting. Some 87 patients were randomized and 74 patients were evaluated in the analysis. Psychological counselling reduced the impairment in quality of life (odds ratio 0·23, 95 per cent c.i. 0·09 to 0·61) and in quality of sleep (odds ratio 0·27, 0·10 to 0·73). CONCLUSION: Perioperative psychological support reduces impairment in quality of life and quality of sleep after oesophagectomy. Registration number: NCT01738620 (http://www.clinicaltrials.gov).
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 | 0.005 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".