MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2919183818 · doi:10.1213/ane.0000000000004061

Methylprednisolone Does Not Reduce Acute Postoperative Pain After Cardiac Surgery: Subanalysis of a Randomized Clinical Trial

2019· article· en· W2919183818 on OpenAlexaff
Alparslan Turan, Barak Cohen, Richard Whitlock, Hani Essber, Azfar Niazi, Natalya Makarova, Wael Saasouh, Andrej Alfirevic, Donn Marciniak, Daniel I. Sessler

Bibliographic record

VenueAnesthesia & Analgesia · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicAnesthesia and Pain Management
Canadian institutionsHamilton Health SciencesMcMaster UniversityPopulation Health Research Institute
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMethylprednisoloneMedicinePlaceboAnesthesiaOpioidRandomized controlled trialCardiac surgerySurgeryInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Pain after cardiac surgery is largely treated with opioids, but their poor safety profile makes nonopioid medications attractive as part of multimodal pathways. Anti-inflammatory drugs reduce acute postoperative pain, but the role of steroids in reducing acute poststernotomy pain is unclear. We evaluated the association between the intraoperative administration of methylprednisolone and postoperative analgesia, defined as a composite of pain scores and opioid consumption, during the initial 24 hours after cardiac surgery. METHODS: We conducted a post hoc retrospective analysis of a large clinical trial in which adults having cardiac surgery were randomized 1:1 to receive 2 intraoperative doses of 250 mg IV methylprednisolone or placebo. Pain scores and opioid consumption were collected during the initial 24 hours after surgery. Methylprednisolone was considered to be associated with better pain control than placebo if proven noninferior (not worse) on both pain scores (defined a priori with delta of 1 point) and opioid consumption (delta of 20%) and superior to placebo in at least 1 of the 2 outcomes. This test was repeated in the opposite direction (testing whether placebo is better than methylprednisolone on postoperative pain management). RESULTS: Of 251 eligible patients, 127 received methylprednisolone and 124 received placebo. Methylprednisolone was noninferior to placebo on pain with difference in mean (CI) pain scores of -0.25 (-0.71 to 0.21); P < .001. However, methylprednisolone was not noninferior to placebo on opioid consumption (ratio of geometric means [CI]: 1.11 [0.64-1.91]; P = .37). Because methylprednisolone was not noninferior to placebo on both outcomes, we did not proceed to superiority testing based on the a priori stopping rules. Similar results were found when testing the opposite direction. CONCLUSIONS: In this post hoc analysis, we could not identify a beneficial analgesic effect after cardiac surgery associated with methylprednisolone administration. There are currently no data to suggest that methylprednisolone has significant analgesic benefit in adults having cardiac surgery.

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)0.012
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.018
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Meta-analysis · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.012
Threshold uncertainty score0.066

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0120.018
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0040.007
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0020.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.000

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 head0.020
GPT teacher head0.307
Teacher spread0.287 · 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 designMeta-analysis
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

Citations6
Published2019
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAnesthesia & AnalgesiaSame topicAnesthesia and Pain ManagementFrench-language works237,207