The analgesic efficacy of IV acetaminophen for acute postoperative pain in C-section patients: a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The rate of cesarean delivery is on the rise in the USA. Satisfactory postoperative analgesia remains a top priority for cesarean delivery. Multimodal analgesia with a reduction in opioid consumption and improvement in patient satisfaction is a goal for anesthesiologists caring for this patient population. Our study sought to assess whether IV acetaminophen in four divided doses over 24 h decreased pain scores and opioid requirements in patients undergoing cesarean delivery with neuraxial anesthesia. METHODS: 66 patients undergoing elective cesarean delivery under spinal anesthesia with hyperbaric bupivacaine 12 mg, fentanyl 10 µg, and preservative-free morphine 150 µg were randomized to receive either IV acetaminophen or IV placebo for four consecutive doses in the first 24 h postoperatively. The need for rescue medication using morphine equivalence, pain scores, patient satisfaction, and side effects were assessed by a blinded researcher in the first 24 and 48 h postoperatively. RESULTS: = .795). Postoperative pain scores, patient satisfaction, and adverse events were similar in both groups as well. CONCLUSIONS: The results of this study failed to demonstrate any additional benefits of administering multiple doses of IV acetaminophen for treating postoperative pain in patients who have undergone CS surgery and receiving intra-thecal morphine as part of their anesthesia and analgesia. TRIAL REGISTRY NUMBER: NCT02069184.
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) | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 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".