Topical benzydamine for preventing postoperative sore throat
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Kuriyama et al. conducted a meta-analysis to assess the efficacy and safety of topical application of benzydamine for preventing postoperative sore throat in adults undergoing elective surgery under general anaesthesia 1. The authors identified 13 randomised controlled trials involving 1842 study participants for their meta-analysis. They included trials involving general anaesthesia and tracheal intubation, but did not specify tracheal tube sizes. One trial involving double-lumen tracheal tubes was included 2. Given that intubation with double-lumen tubes increases the incidence and severity of postoperative sore throat 3-5, are the authors still confident of their conclusions with this study included? Furthermore, the authors quote the incidence of sore throat as 18.6% in the benzydamine group and 25.6% in the control group at 24 h in the study conducted by Nimmaanrat et al. 6, but that article states that 25 patients (58.1%) from each group experienced sore throat beyond 24 h, rather than specifically at 24 h (which was the primary outcome of the meta-analysis). Can we ask the authors whether this discrepancy would have affected their conclusions?
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 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 | 0.000 |
| 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 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".