MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2802457299 · doi:10.3171/2017.10.jns171464

Intravenous acetaminophen for postoperative supratentorial craniotomy pain: a prospective, randomized, double-blinded, placebo-controlled trial

2018· article· en· W2802457299 on OpenAlexaff
Walavan Sivakumar, Michael Jensen, Julie Martinez, Michael Tanana, Nancy Duncan, Robert Hoesch, Jay Riva-Cambrin, Craig Kilburg, Safdar Ansari, P.A. House

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of neurosurgery · 2018
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicAnesthesia and Pain Management
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Calgary
FundersUniversity of Utah
KeywordsMedicineAnesthesiaAcetaminophenPlaceboNarcoticNauseaCraniotomyRandomized controlled trialSurgeryMorphineSalineProspective cohort studyAnalgesic

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

OBJECTIVE: Acute pain control after cranial surgery is challenging. Prior research has shown that patients experience inadequate pain control post-craniotomy. The use of oral medications is sometimes delayed because of postoperative nausea, and the use of narcotics can impair the evaluation of brain function and thus are used judiciously. Few nonnarcotic intravenous (IV) analgesics exist. The authors present the results of the first prospective study evaluating the use of IV acetaminophen in patients after elective craniotomy. METHODS: The authors conducted a randomized, double-blinded, placebo-controlled investigation. Adults undergoing elective, supratentorial craniotomies between September 2013 and June 2015 were randomized into two groups. The experimental group received 1000 mg/100 ml IV acetaminophen every 8 hours for 48 hours. The placebo group received 100 ml of 0.9% normal saline on the same schedule. Both groups were also treated with a standardized pain control algorithm. The study was powered to detect a 30% difference in the primary outcome measures: narcotic consumption (morphine equivalents, ME) at 24 and 48 hours after surgery. Patient-reported pain scores immediately postoperatively and 48 hours after surgery were also recorded. RESULTS: A total of 204 patients completed the trial. No significant differences were found in narcotic consumption between groups at either time point (in the treatment and placebo groups, respectively, at 24 hours: 84.3 ME [95% CI 70.2–98.4] and 85.5 ME [95% CI 73–97.9]; and at 48 hours: 123.5 ME [95% CI 102.9–144.2] and 134.2 ME [95% CI 112.1–156.3]). The difference in improvement in patient-reported pain scores between the treatment and placebo groups was significant (p < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: Patients who received postoperative IV acetaminophen after craniotomy did not have significantly decreased narcotic consumption but did experience significantly lower pain scores after surgery. The drug was well tolerated and safe in this patient population.

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)0.007
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation 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 score0.020
Threshold uncertainty score0.856

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0070.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.001
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 head0.030
GPT teacher head0.289
Teacher spread0.259 · 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 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

Citations29
Published2018
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of neurosurgerySame topicAnesthesia and Pain ManagementFrench-language works237,207