Meperidine for patients expected to have poor tolerance to esophagogastroduodenoscopy: A double‐blind, randomized, controlled study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background Anxious patients and those with poor tolerance to previous esophagogastroduodenoscopy (EGD) usually have poor tolerance for EGD. Aims To investigate the effect of meperidine on these patients during EGD. Methods A total of 110 patients undergoing diagnostic EGD were randomized to receive either meperidine ( n = 55) or placebo ( n = 55) before EGD. The primary outcome was patient discomfort scores during esophageal intubation. Results Patients in the meperidine group reported less discomfort during esophageal intubation (median score of 5.0 and interquartile range (IQR) 1.5–7.0) compared with the control (median score of 6.0, IQR 5.0–8.5, P = .003). Patients in the meperidine group had better tolerance during the procedure (median score of 2 (IQR 1.0–3.0) versus 3 (IQR 1.0–4.0), P = .048), and the endoscopists reported higher overall satisfaction scores (median score of 9 (IQR 7.0–9.0) versus 8 (IQR 7.0–9.0), P = .043). There was significantly less increase in heart rate and blood pressure during the procedure in the meperidine group than in the placebo group (23 bpm (IQR 9–32) versus 30 bpm (IQR 18–52); P = .006); (7 mmHg (IQR 1–14) versus 18 mmHg (IQR 2–30); P = .008). Connect‐the‐numbers test showed comparable results before and after EGD between the two groups. Conclusion For patients expected to have poor tolerance during EGD, meperidine reduced discomfort, decreased cardiovascular distress, and improved endoscopist satisfaction, without adverse effects on their psychomotor function after the procedure.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 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 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".