MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2764233327 · doi:10.1542/peds.2017-0186

Oral Analgesics Utilization for Children With Musculoskeletal Injury (OUCH Trial): An RCT

2017· article· en· W2764233327 on OpenAlexaff
Sylvie Le May, Samina Ali, Amy C. Plint, Benoı̂t Mâsse, Gina Neto, Marie‐Christine Auclair, Amy L. Drendel, Ariane Ballard, Christelle Khadra, Édith Villeneuve, Stefan Parent, Patrick J. McGrath, Grégoire Leclair, Serge Gouin

Bibliographic record

VenuePEDIATRICS · 2017
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicPediatric Pain Management Techniques
Canadian institutionsNova Scotia Health AuthorityIzaak Walton Killam Health CentreDalhousie UniversityChildren's Hospital of Eastern OntarioUniversity of OttawaWomen and Children’s Health Research InstituteUniversité de MontréalUniversity of AlbertaCentre Hospitalier Universitaire Sainte-Justine
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineIbuprofenMorphinePlaceboVisual analogue scaleAnesthesiaRandomized controlled trialConfidence intervalEmergency departmentOpioidInternal medicinePharmacology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Musculoskeletal injuries (MSK-Is) are a common and painful condition among children that remains poorly treated in the emergency department (ED). We aimed to test the efficacy of a combination of an anti-inflammatory drug with an opioid for pain management of MSK-I in children presenting to the ED. METHODS: In this randomized, double-blinded, placebo-controlled trial, we enrolled children between 6 and 17 years presenting to the ED with an MSK-I and a pain score >29 mm on the visual analog scale (VAS). Participants were randomly assigned to oral morphine (0.2 mg/kg) + ibuprofen (10 mg/kg) (morphine + ibuprofen) or morphine (0.2 mg/kg) + placebo of ibuprofen or ibuprofen (10 mg/kg) + placebo of morphine. Primary outcome was children with VAS pain score <30 mm at 60 minutes postmedication administration. RESULTS: A total of 501 participants were enrolled and 456 were included in primary analyses (morphine + ibuprofen = 177; morphine = 188; ibuprofen = 91). Only 29.9% (morphine + ibuprofen), 29.3% (morphine), and 33.0% (ibuprofen) of participants achieved the primary outcome (P = .81). Mean VAS pain reduction at 60 minutes were −18.7 (95% confidence interval [CI]: −21.9 to −16.6) (morphine + ibuprofen), −17.0 (95% CI: −20.0 to −13.9) (morphine), −18.6 (95% CI: −22.9 to −14.2) (ibuprofen) (P = .69). Children in the morphine + ibuprofen group (P < .001) and in the morphine group (P < .001) experienced more side effects than those in the ibuprofen group. No serious adverse event was reported. CONCLUSIONS: Combination of morphine with ibuprofen did not provide adequate pain relief for children with MSK-I in the ED. None of the study medication provided an optimal pain management because most of children did not reach a mild pain score (NCT02064894).

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.056
Threshold uncertainty score0.887

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.044
GPT teacher head0.366
Teacher spread0.322 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
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

Citations46
Published2017
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePEDIATRICSSame topicPediatric Pain Management TechniquesFrench-language works237,207