MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2987840461 · doi:10.1177/1098612x19886132

A randomized clinical trial comparing butorphanol and buprenorphine within a multimodal analgesic protocol in cats undergoing orchiectomy

2019· article· en· W2987840461 on OpenAlexaff
Kira LM Moser, Michelle M. M. Hasiuk, Tatum Armstrong, Marta Gunn, Daniel Pang

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Feline Medicine and Surgery · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldVeterinary
TopicVeterinary Pharmacology and Anesthesia
Canadian institutionsCalgary Laboratory ServicesUniversité de MontréalUniversity of Calgary
FundersZoetis
KeywordsButorphanolMedicineAnesthesiaBuprenorphineSedationOrchiectomyIsofluraneLidocaineCATSAnalgesicMeloxicamRandomized controlled trialFentanylSurgeryOpioidInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Objectives The aim of this study was to compare the effects of butorphanol and buprenorphine, as part of a multimodal analgesic protocol, on recovery and analgesia in cats undergoing orchiectomy. Methods In a prospective, randomized, blind clinical trial, 47 adult male cats were randomly assigned to receive either butorphanol (0.3 mg/kg, n = 24) or buprenorphine (0.02 mg/kg, n = 23) in combination with dexmedetomidine (25 μg/kg) and alfaxalone (2 mg/kg) as a single intramuscular injection for the induction of general anesthesia. Isoflurane carried in oxygen was supplemented as needed during orchiectomy. All cats received lidocaine (2 mg/kg intratesticular), meloxicam (0.3 mg/kg SC) and atipamezole (125 μg/kg IM) postoperatively. Pain and sedation scales were applied at baseline, and 2, 4 and 6 h postoperatively. Time to achieve sternal recumbency and to begin eating were also recorded. Results Pain scale scores were low and showed no difference between the treatment groups at all time points ( P ⩾0.99, all time points). Four cats exceeded the analgesia intervention threshold for rescue analgesia (butorphanol, n = 3; buprenorphine, n = 1). There was no difference in sedation scores between groups at any time point ( P >0.99, all time points). Significantly more cats in the buprenorphine group (n = 12) required isoflurane than in the butorphanol group (n = 2) ( P = 0.0013; relative risk 6.3, 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.8–23.5). There was no significant difference in time to achieve sternal recumbency ( P = 0.96, 95% CI –20 to 20) between groups or in return to eating ( P = 0.48, 95% CI –92.0 to 113.5), with most cats eating within 1 h of surgery (butorphanol, 79%; buprenorphine, 83%). Conclusions and relevance There were no significant differences in analgesia or recovery between butorphanol and buprenorphine treatment groups as part of a multimodal injectable anesthetic protocol. Butorphanol is associated with superior depth of anesthesia, facilitating injectable anesthesia.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.010
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Randomized trial · Consensus signal: Randomized trial
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.079
Threshold uncertainty score0.689

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0100.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.147
GPT teacher head0.427
Teacher spread0.280 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

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

Citations13
Published2019
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Feline Medicine and SurgerySame topicVeterinary Pharmacology and AnesthesiaFrench-language works237,207