Prospective randomized appraisal of the best pain relief option after L4/L5 discectomy
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Objectives To determine the efficacy of paracetamol and tramadol analgesia via patient controlled pump and intermittent administration using the Short-Form McGill Pain Questionnaire after L4/L5 discectomy in neurosurgical patients.Methods Fourteen months prospective quantitative study with 200 neurosurgical patients’ participation who underwent elective discectomy of the L4/L5 intervertebral disc extrusion. The study was conducted due to a patient-controlled analgesia pump and intermittent analgesia application. Pain was assessed using the Short-Form McGill Pain Questionnaire in the Croatian language during the zero, first, and second postoperative day.Results Perception of pain was reduced in patient controlled analgesia pump groups after the second measurement during the first postoperative day [95% CI: −3.89, −0.76], regardless of administered analgesic (p< 0.001). After the final measurement, at 7 PM on the second postoperative day, the differences were not significant (p= 0.070). This study results are registered and allocated in the Australian New Zealand Clinical Trials Registry (ANZCTR).Discussion Analgesia administration via patient-controlled pump contributes to the alleviation of postoperative pain after L4/L5 disc extrusion surgery regardless of administered analgesic.
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 | 0.006 | 0.010 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.008 | 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".