MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3113041574 · doi:10.14740/jcgo.v9i4.689

Gabapentin for Peri-Operative Pain Relief in Office Gynecological Surgery: A Double-Blind Randomized Controlled Trial

2020· article· en· W3113041574 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Oxana Zarudskaya, Adam V. Levy, Chad L. Cross

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Clinical Gynecology and Obstetrics · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicAnesthesia and Pain Management
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineGabapentinPlaceboAnesthesiaRandomized controlled trialNauseaVisual analogue scaleAmbulatoryVomitingPethidineOutpatient clinicSurgeryAnalgesicInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Background: This study aims to validate the use of gabapentin in peri-operative pain management for outpatient gynecological (GYN) office procedures using surgical abortion at gestational ages less than 24 weeks. Methods: We conducted a double-blind, randomized, placebo-controlled trial of gabapentin in an ambulatory surgical abortion center. Eligible participants were patients 18 years of age and older, English or Spanish speaking, seeking a surgical elective abortion with pain management consisting of local anesthesia and intravenous sedation at gestational ages from 5 to 23 6/7 weeks. The study site was Birth Control Care Center, an affiliated clinic with the University of Nevada Las Vegas School of Medicine. Patients received routine pain control plus either placebo or gabapentin 600 mg 1 - 2 h prior to surgery. The primary outcome measured was post-operative pain scores using a 100-point (100 mm) visual analog scale at 5 min after the procedure. Additionally, pain scores were obtained at 30 min and 24 h post-procedure. Other secondary outcomes measured were nausea and vomiting at 5 min and 24 h post-procedure. Results: From May 2017 to March 2018, 219 patients were recruited to this study from 400 patients who were offered participation. A total of 109 were randomized to gabapentin and 110 were randomized to placebo. Demographic characteristics, pregnancy history and general health conditions were similar. Pain scores at 5 min, 30 min and 24 h after the procedure were not significantly different between arms (P = 0.28), though pain was reported to decrease between 30 min and 24 h post-procedure (P < 0.001) for both groups. Nausea and vomiting were also not significantly reduced in the gabapentin group (P = 0.32 and 0.47), respectively. Conclusions: Patients who received gabapentin, in combination with the routine intravenous pain control and local anesthesia for office-based surgical abortion did not experience less pain at 5 min, 30 min, nor at 24 h after the procedure, compared to the placebo group. Gabapentin did not appear to reduce pain at 24 h after the procedure and is therefore unlikely to reduce narcotic use in this clinic sample treated with intravenous (IV) sedation. Further, gabapentin was not useful to reduce nausea and vomiting post-operatively in this clinic sample. J Clin Gynecol Obstet. 2020;9(4):96-101 doi: https://doi.org/10.14740/jcgo689

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.004
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.005
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Randomized trial · Consensus signal: Randomized trial
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.008
Threshold uncertainty score0.027

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.005
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0050.002
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.002
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0030.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0080.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.116
GPT teacher head0.390
Teacher spread0.273 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designRandomized trial
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2020
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Clinical Gynecology and ObstetricsSame topicAnesthesia and Pain ManagementFrench-language works237,207