Propofol for migraine in the emergency department: A pilot randomised controlled trial
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To test the administration of intravenous (i.v.) propofol at a procedural sedation dose compared to standard therapy for initial management of migraine in the ED. METHODS: This was an open label, randomised controlled pilot trial. Eligible patients were adults with a diagnosis of migraine and planned for treatment with i.v. medications. Patients were randomised to propofol or standard therapy groups. The primary outcome variable was time to discharge (TTD) defined as time from intervention to discharge from the ED. Secondary outcomes were safety of propofol administration and change in pain scores. A reduction of pain by ≥50% or discharge from the ED was defined as favourable. All analyses were performed on an intention-to-treat basis. RESULTS: Data from 29 patients were analysed, with 15 patients in the propofol group and 14 patients in the standard therapy group. TTD was significantly lower in the propofol group with median of 290 (interquartile range 162-500) min compared to 554.5 (interquartile range 534-639) min in the standard therapy group (P = 0.021). The hazard ratio for the defined favourable outcome of reduction of pain scores or discharge from the ED was 1.54 (95% CI 0.69-3.41). CONCLUSIONS: Initial management of migraine with i.v. propofol at procedural sedation doses significantly reduced TTD compared to standard therapy. We did not detect any significant safety concerns although the study was not adequately powered to detect safety of the intervention and requires validation.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 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 teacher head, 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".