MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2748112700 · doi:10.1097/ico.0000000000001328

Codeine Plus Acetaminophen for Pain After Photorefractive Keratectomy: A Randomized, Double-Blind, Placebo-Controlled Add-On Trial

2017· article· en· W2748112700 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Vinícius B. P. Pereira, Renato Garcia, André A. M. Torricelli, Adriana Mukai, Samir J. Bechara

Bibliographic record

VenueCornea · 2017
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicCorneal surgery and disorders
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPhotorefractive keratectomyCodeineAcetaminophenMedicinePlaceboRandomized controlled trialAnesthesiaDouble blindMorphineOphthalmologyInternal medicineCorneaAlternative medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Pain after photorefractive keratectomy (PRK) is significant, and the analgesic efficacy and safety of oral opioids in combination with acetaminophen has not been fully investigated in PRK trials. PURPOSE: To assess the efficacy and safety of the combination of codeine plus acetaminophen (paracetamol) versus placebo as an add-on therapy for pain control after PRK. STUDY DESIGN: Randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial. SETTING: Single tertiary center. METHODS: One eye was randomly allocated to the intervention, whereas the fellow eye was treated with a placebo. Eyes were operated 2 weeks apart. The participants were adults older than 20 years with refractive stability for ≥1 year, who underwent PRK for correction of myopia or myopic astigmatism. Codeine (30 mg) plus acetaminophen (500 mg) was given orally 4 times per day for 4 days after PRK. The follow-up duration was 4 months. The study outcomes included pain scores at 1 to 72 hours, as measured by the visual analog scale, McGill Pain Questionnaire, and Brief Pain Inventory, as well as adverse events and corneal wound healing. RESULTS: Of the initial 82 eyes, 80 completed the trial (40 intervention, 40 placebo). Median (interquartile range) pain scores as measured by the visual analog scale were statistically and clinically lower during treatment with codeine/acetaminophen compared with the placebo: 1 hour: 4 (2-4) versus 6 (3-6), P < 0.001; 24 hours: 4 (3-6) versus 7 (6-9), P < 0.001; 48 hours: 1 (0-2) versus 3 (2-5), P < 0.001; and 72 hours: 0 (0-0) versus 0 (0-2), P = 0.001. Virtually identical results were obtained by the McGill Pain Questionnaire and Brief Pain Inventory scales. The most common adverse events with codeine/acetaminophen were drowsiness (42%), nausea (18%), and constipation (5%). No case of delayed epithelial healing was observed in both treatment arms. CONCLUSIONS: When added to the usual care therapy, the oral combination of codeine/acetaminophen was safe and significantly superior to the placebo for pain control after PRK. CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION: URL: http://www.clinicaltrials.gov. Unique identifier: NCT02625753.

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Randomized trial · Consensus signal: Randomized trial
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.007
Threshold uncertainty score0.025

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0040.002
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0020.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0070.001

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 head0.049
GPT teacher head0.325
Teacher spread0.277 · 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 designRandomized trial
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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

Citations14
Published2017
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCorneaSame topicCorneal surgery and disordersFrench-language works237,207