MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2995004259 · doi:10.12669/pjms.36.2.505

Postoperative pain management for circumcision; Comparison of frequently used methods

2019· article· en· W2995004259 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Caglar Münevveroglu, Mehmet Gündüz

Bibliographic record

VenuePakistan Journal of Medical Sciences · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicGenital Health and Disease
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicinePain managementMale circumcisionGeneral surgeryAnesthesiaHealth servicesPopulation

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Objective: To determine the ideal method for postoperative pain management after circumcision by comparing the most frequently used different methods like; dorsal penile block, caudal epidural block, subcutaneous ring block, intravenous paracetamol and intravenous tramadol HCl. Methods: Between May 1st 2015 to May 1st 2016, 500 children between 2-10 year old were circumcised at the department of pediatric surgery of Istanbul Medipol University Health Care Practice & Research Center Sefakoy Hospital. Five groups were formed according to postoperative analgesia methods which were planned to be compared; Group-I. penile block, Group-II. Caudal epidural block, Group-III. subcutaneous ring block, Group-IV as intravenous paracetamol and Group-V as intravenous tramadol HCl. In order to evaluate the postoperative pain levels of children, Children’s Hospital Eastern Ontario Pain Scale (CHEOPS) was filled at 30, 60, 120, 180 minutes after circumcision by a researcher who does not know which method was applied. Results: No significant difference is found between the groups (p>0.05). In the statistical analysis, no significant difference was found in the effect of analgesia methods on CHEOPS scores between 30, 60, 120 and 180 minutes (p>0.05). In parallel with this result, no significant difference was found in the effect of heart beat rates and respiration rate averages between 30, 60, 120 and 180 minutes (p>0.05). Conclusion: It has been shown that none of the five method has any superiority in reducing pain after circumcision and that all five methods can be used. However, we think that side effects of regional anesthesia and systemic analgesic applications should not be ignored. doi: https://doi.org/10.12669/pjms.36.2.505 How to cite this:Munevveroglu C, Gunduz M. Postoperative pain management for circumcision; Comparison of frequently used methods. Pak J Med Sci. 2020;36(2):91-95. doi: https://doi.org/10.12669/pjms.36.2.505 This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/3.0), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.

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)0.009
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: Other design · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.723
Threshold uncertainty score0.681

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0090.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.096
GPT teacher head0.512
Teacher spread0.416 · 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 designOther design
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

Citations12
Published2019
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePakistan Journal of Medical SciencesSame topicGenital Health and DiseaseFrench-language works237,207