Comparison of meperidine, tramadol and fentanyl for post‐spinal shivering prevention during cesarean delivery: A double‐blind randomized controlled trial
Bibliographic record
Abstract
AIM: To assess the effects of intravenously administered meperidine, fentanyl and tramadol in reducing the incidence, onset time and severity of the shivering response in parturients during cesarean delivery under spinal anesthesia. Secondary outcomes included patient satisfaction and sedation scores. METHODS: After Ethics board approval and informed written consent, 350 parturients (ASA physical status I or II), between 20 and 40 years of age, undergoing emergency or elective cesarean delivery under spinal anesthesia were recruited. Parturients were then randomly allocated to seven study groups: normal saline (control), low-dose meperidine (0.5 mg/kg), high-dose meperidine (0.75 mg/kg), low-dose fentanyl (0.5 mcg/kg), high-dose fentanyl (0.75 mcg/kg), low-dose tramadol (0.5 mg/kg) and high-dose tramadol (0.75 mg/kg). The incidence, onset time and severity of shivering, along with patient satisfaction and sedation scores were measured. RESULTS: All study drugs showed significant reduction in incidence, onset time and severity of shivering and greater satisfaction scores compared to the control group (P < 0.01). Within each drug class, no significant differences in shivering were found between the high-dose and low-dose groups. Among study drugs, low-dose tramadol was superior due to shivering prevention and significantly reduced sedation. CONCLUSION: Intravenously administered meperidine, fentanyl and tramadol reduce shivering incidence, onset time and severity in parturients undergoing cesarean delivery following spinal anesthesia. Importantly, low-dose intravenous tramadol (0.5 mg/kg) allowed shivering prevention and low sedation scores, thereby offering greater parturient satisfaction and better maternal-newborn bonding.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.006 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 0.001 |
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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".