MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2900301980 · doi:10.4212/cjhp.v45i4.2644

Propofol Versus Thiopental — lsoflurane in Outpatient Surgical Procedures

2018· article· en· W2900301980 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Aaron Killian, P R Hamilton, Michael Tierney

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Canadian Journal of Hospital Pharmacy · 2018
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicAnesthesia and Sedative Agents
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPropofolMedicineIsofluraneAnesthesiaVomitingPostoperative nausea and vomitingNauseaSurgery

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

ABSTRACT The objective of this study was to assess the potential advantages of propofol to determine if it might be cost effective when compared with traditional anesthesia using thiopental and isoflurane (TI) for outpatient surgery. The study was designed as a prospective, randomized, biphasic trial (Phase I [peri-op]: single blind; Phase II [post-op]: double blind). Of 75 patients enrolled, 63 (33 propofol; 30 Tl) had evaluable results. Patients were randomly assigned to receive induction and maintenance of anesthesia with either propofol or a combination of thiopental and isoflurane (TI). During recovery, the mean times to ambulation, tolerating liquids, and discharge were significantly lower in the propofol group. In addition, less direct patient care was required in the recovery room for those receiving propofol. Patients in the propofol group experienced less nausea and vomiting than those receiving TI. Patients regarded overall recovery from surgery to be significantly better with propofol. The average cost of propofol per patient ($16.41) was approximately three times higher than with TI ($5.45). RESUME On a effectue une etude prospective, aleatoire, biphasique (phase I [perioperatoire]: a simple insue; phase II [postoperatoire]: a double insue) pour evaluer les avantages eventuels du propofol et determiner si son emploi pour la chirurgie en unite de soins d'un jour est rentable, comparativement aux anesthesiques classiques, a savoir une combinaison de thiopental et d'isoflurane (Tl). On a pu evaluer les resultats de 63 (33 propofols; 30 Tl) des 75 patients qui ont participe a l'etude. Le choix des patients pour les deux types d'anesthesie s'est fait au hasard.  Au reveil les patients anesthesies au propofol mettent, en moyenne, significativement moins de temps a marcher, a tolerer les liquides et a sortir de l'hopital. De plus, ce groupe exige moins de soins dans la salle de reveil. Les patients anesthesies au propofol ont moins de nausees et de vomissements que ceux anesthesies avec le melange thiopental-isoflurane. Dans l'ensemble, la recuperation post-operatoire est nettement meilleure chez les patients anesthesies au propofol. Le cout moyen par patient du propofol (16,41 $) est environ trois fois plus eleve que celui de la combinaison thiopental-isoflurane (5,45 $).

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.005
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.008

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.005
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.032
GPT teacher head0.320
Teacher spread0.288 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
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

Citations0
Published2018
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe Canadian Journal of Hospital PharmacySame topicAnesthesia and Sedative AgentsFrench-language works237,207