Inpatient postoperative undesirable side effects of analgesics management: a pediatric patients and parental perspective
Bibliographic record
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: The use of analgesics for the treatment of post-operative pain is common, however, such medications are known to have potential side effects. These undesirable secondary effects can have an important impact on patients and impede their recovery. OBJECTIVES: A review of the literature was conducted in order to gain a better understanding of the challenges confronted by pediatric patients in the acute post-operative period in terms of the side effects of analgesics. METHODS: An online search of keywords (pediatric, analgesic, pain medication, side effects, adverse effects, nausea and vomiting, post-operative, post-discharge, self-care, self-management, management, self-care strategies, patient expectations, patient concerns and education) using PubMed, Medline and Scopus databases, and using the snowballing method of reference tracking was conducted. RESULTS: A total of 10 studies (N = 10, 871 participants) published between 1990 and 2019 were reviewed. Common side effects experienced by patients were nausea, vomiting, and pruritus. Patients' parents reported having many concerns about analgesic use and reported a lack of knowledge on pain medications and side-effect management. CONCLUSION: Areas of improvement in clinical practice include providing the patient and their parents with more information about the post-operative period, analgesic use, and side effects as well as prescribing appropriate treatments to alleviate side effects. This review reveals a lack of qualitative data on pain management and related undesired side effects in pediatric patients having undergone inpatient surgery in addition to the consequences on patients' daily living and on the self-care strategies they engage in to attenuate such effects.
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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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) | 0.000 | 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".