Intra‐operative methadone effect on quality of recovery compared with morphine following laparoscopic gastroplasty: a randomised controlled trial
Bibliographic record
Abstract
who underwent bariatric surgery. Patients were allocated at random to receive either intra-operative methadone (n = 69) or morphine (n = 68). All patients received the same postoperative care and analgesia. The primary outcome of postoperative quality of recovery was assessed using the Quality of Recovery-40 questionnaire total score 24 h after surgery. Secondary outcomes were assessed in the post-anaesthesia care unit the night of the day of surgery (T1), in the morning after surgery (T2); and at night on the day following surgery (T3). The median (IQR [range]) total Quality of Recovery-40 questionnaire score of 194 (190-197 [165-200]) was higher (p < 0.0001) in the methadone group compared with the score of 181 (174-185.5 [121-200]) in the morphine group. In the post-anaesthesia care unit, the pain burden; incidence of nausea and vomiting; rescue morphine dose; and time to discharge, were significantly lower in the methadone group. On the ward, the methadone group had a lower: incidence of rescue morphine requests at T1 (5.8 vs. 54.4%, p < 0.0001) and T2 (0 vs. 20.1%, p < 0.0001); and incidence of nausea (21.7 vs. 41.2%, p = 0.014), compared with the morphine group. We conclude that intra-operative intravenous methadone improved quality of recovery in patients who underwent laparoscopic gastroplasty, compared with intra-operative morphine. Methadone also reduced postoperative pain, postoperative opioid consumption and the incidence of opioid-related adverse events.
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 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 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".