An investigation into the Effect of Alpha Ointment (Fundermol) on Perineal Pain relief Following Episiotomy in Nulliparous Women
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background & aim: Pain is the most common complaint of mothers after episiotomy. Various medications are used for the alleviation of this pain. The aim of this study was to evaluate the effect of alpha ointment on the relief of pain caused by episiotomy. Methods: This double-blind clinical trial was conducted on 70 primiparous women in Ommolbanin Hospital in Mashhad, Iran. The participants were divided into two groups of control and intervention. The intervention group received one fingertip unit of Alpha ointment following washing the wound with normal saline and drying, 48 hour after delivery, once a day, until the tenth day. The control group received a placebo in the same manner. Pain intensity was evaluated using the shortened from of McGill Pain Questionnaire on the first, fifth, and tenth days post-delivery. Data analysis was carried out in SPSS (version 16) using the Mann-Whitney U test, t-test, Chi-square test, and Fisher's exact test. Results: There was no statistically significant difference between the two groups in terms of the mean pain score on the first, fifth, and tenth days of the study (P=0.73, P=0.098, and P=0.464, respectively). Conclusion: As the finding of the present study showed, Alpha ointment had no effect on the perineal pain after episiotomy.
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| 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) | 0.002 | 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".