Assess the effectiveness of nimesulide in reducing pain in panretinal photocoagulation
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Objective To evaluate the effectiveness of nimesulide for the reduction of pain in panretinal photocoagulation (PRP).Methods A double-masked randomized controlled study was performed.Fifty-eight eyes in 48 patients undergoing PRP were enrolled and randomised to group nimesulide or placebo,taken for 2 days starting 24 hours before the laser treatment.The laser treatment was performed following a standardized protocol.Pain after treatment was assessed using Short form of the McGill pain questionnaire (SF-MPQ),it included pain rating index (PRI),visual analogous scale (VAS) and present pain intensity (PPI).The score of them was the pain level.Results The PRI for group nimesulide was 3.8333±2.3057 and group placebo was 4.3333±3.1132,(P ＞0.05).The VAS for group nimesulide was 2.6167±1.1347 and group placebo was 3.2333±0.5942,(P ＜0.05).The PPI for group nimesulide was 1.3667±0.6149 and group placebo was 1.1111±0.7511,(P ＞0.05).The mean pain level for group nimesulide was 7.8167±3.4046 and group placebo was 8.6778±3.5499,(P ＞0.05).There was no significant difference for pain levels between nimesulide instilled and placebo eyes (P ＞0.05).Conclusions Pre-emptive analgesia with nimesulide dose not significantly reduces pain associated with PRP. Key words: Pain; Panretinal photocoagulation; Nimesulide; SF-MPQ
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 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.000 |
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.
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".