The Effect of Intravenous Dexmedetomidine on Postoperative Pain Intensity in Patients undergoing Abdominal Hysterectomy
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Objective: The control of perioperative pain and its practice can play an important role in short and long term postoperative convalescence. The aim of this study was to evaluate the effect of dexmedetomidine on postoperative pain in patients undergoing abdominal hysterectomy (TAH). Methods: This double-blind, randomized controlled clinical trial study was conducted on 70 women aged 35-65 years undergoing general anaesthesia for TAH. In dexmedetomidine group, immediately after induction, a bolus dose of dexmedetomidine 1 μg/kg was injected for 15 minutes and then a dose of infusion 0.5 μg/kg until the end of surgery. In the control group, normal saline was injected. Patients were evaluated for pain intensity according to the visual analogue scale (VAS), the amount of analgesic use during 24 hours after surgery and time of administration of the first dose of pethidine. Results: Although the mean pain intensity at all times in dexmedetomidine group was lower than the control group, there was a significant difference at 4, 8, 16, and 24 hours after surgery (P <0.05). The time of the first request for administration of the first dose of pethidine was greater than the control group, but there was no significant difference in first-time administration of opioid in the two groups (P >0.05). Although the mean dose of pethidine was lower in the dexmedetomidine group, there was no statistically significant difference between the mean values in the two groups (P >0.05). Conclusion: This study showed the efficacy of dexmedetomidine in reducing post-operative pain and receiving pethidine after surgery.
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 | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".