Effectof evening primrose oil on postoperative pain after appendectomy: A double-blind, randomized, clinical trial
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE: Despite advances in surgical techniques and pharmacology, postoperative pain remains a common problem after appendectomy, and its management continues to be suboptimal. The aim of this study was to evaluate the effect of evening primrose oil on the reduction of postoperative pain after appendectomy. MATERIALS AND METHODS: In a double-blind, randomized, clinical trial, a total of 80 adults patients with acute appendicitis who were undergoing appendectomy at the Shahid Beheshti Emdad Hospital in Sabzevar, were included. Patients were randomly allocated into two equally sized groups (n = 40). In postoperative period and after recovering from the anesthesia, each of the intervention and control groups received one evening primrose (1000 mg) or placebo capsules every 30 min for 3 times, respectively. All patients in both groups were asked to rate the intensity of their pain on a 0-10 point Visual Analogue Scale (VAS) and also McGill pain questionnaire, before and 1 h after the last administration of the drug, postoperatively. RESULTS: In patients who received evening primrose, both VAS and McGill pain intensity scores significantly decreased after intervention, when compared prior to initiation of the intervention (p < 0.0001). While in the control group, changes of pain intensity scores were not significantly different before and after the intervention (p > 0.05). CONCLUSION: It seems that oral evening primrose can be used as a simple and safe potential adjunctive treatment for postoperative pain control after appendectomy.
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 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.005 | 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 | 0.002 |
| 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".