Effect of Preemptive Clonidnine Versus Pethidine and Ketamine on Postoperative Shivering During Spinal Anesthesia
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Introduction: Postoperative Shivering is an early postoperative complication. Incidence of postoperative shivering (POS) following surgeries varies between 20 to 60%. There is still no consensus on treatment modalities especially in opioid-dependent patients. Aim: To compare the effect of preemptive clonidine, ketamin and pethidine in controlling postoperative shivering in addicted patients who undergo spinal anesthesia. Methods: In a clinical trial, 81 patients who underwent spinal anesthesia for elective orthopaedic surgery for lower limb were enrolled and assigned to groups of 27 patients of the study based on accidental numbers, and 2 patients in Pethidine group and 2 patients in ketamine group were excluded from the study. Clonidine 2 mg was administered orally prior to surgery. Ketamin 2mg/kg and pethidine 0.5 mg/kg were administered in recovery to the patients. Postoperative shivering was measured in patients during stay in post anethesia care unit. Blood pressure and heart rate was recorded during 30 minutes after spinal anethesia in operating room. Results: No significant differences in blood pressure and heart rate were observed between patients. Incidence of postoperative shivering was 28% in clonidine, 36% in pethidine and 48% in ketamin group. Risk of shivering was significantly reduced in patients received clonidine in compare to ketamine (RR: 0.34, 95% CI: 0.138-0.856, p=0.022) which was significant and compare to pethidine (RR=0.79, 95% CI: 0.272-2.323, p=0.67) which was not significant. Conclusion: preemptive Clonidine has superior effect compare to postoperative ketamin and pethidine in controlling postoperative shivering.
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) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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 | 0.001 |
| 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".