Comparison of Regularly Scheduled Ibuprofen Versus “Pro Re Nata” for Ankle Sprains in Children Treated in the Emergency Department
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: We compared pain and degree of disability in patients with acute ankle sprains receiving regular scheduled ibuprofen versus pro re nata (PRN). METHODS: This study is a randomized single-blinded controlled trial of children aged 7 to 17 years presenting with acute ankle sprain to an emergency department. Patients were randomized to receive 10 mg/kg of ibuprofen per dose (maximum 600 mg) every 6 hours regular scheduled versus PRN. Outcome measures included a 100-mm visual analog scale pain and degree of disability at day 4. A sample size of 72 children had a power of 80% to detect a clinically meaningful difference of 20 mm between the regular and PRN group. RESULTS: We randomly assigned 99 patients to receive regular scheduled (n = 50) or PRN (n = 49) ibuprofen. Pain scores and degree of disability at day 4 showed no significant differences between groups. The rate of reported adverse effects was higher in the regular scheduled group (11.4% vs 9.5%) versus the PRN group. CONCLUSIONS: Our study suggests that there is little benefit from routinely using a regular scheduled ibuprofen regimen for acute pediatric ankle sprains.
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 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".