Codeine plus acetaminophen improve sleep quality, daily activity level, and food intake in the early postoperative period after photorefractive keratectomy: a secondary analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: To determine whether codeine plus acetaminophen after photorefractive keratectomy (PRK) have beneficial effects on sleep quality, activity levels, and food intake, beyond their effect of pain relief. METHODS: We enrolled 40 patients (80 eyes) in this randomized, double-blind, paired-eye, placebo-controlled, add-on trial. Each eye was treated 2 weeks apart, and the patients were randomly allocated to receive either the placebo or the intervention (30 mg codeine and 500 mg acetaminophen) (4 times a day for 4 days). Outcomes were sleep quality, daily activity level, and food intake within 24-72 h post-photorefractive keratectomy, as measured by the McGill Pain Questionnaire. RESULTS: Sleep quality and daily activity level were inversely associated with pain scores within the first 48 h post-photorefractive keratectomy. During the intervention, patients were significantly more likely to score their sleep quality as good at 24 h (relative risk=2.5; 95% confidence interval 1.48-4.21, p<0.001) and 48 h compared to during placebo (relative risk=1.37; 95% confidence interval: 1.03-1.84, p=0.023). The probability of reporting good daily activity level at 24 and 72 hours post-photorefractive keratectomy was three times higher when patients received the intervention compared to the placebo (relative risk=3.0; 95% confidence interval: 1.49-6.15, p=0.006 and relative risk=1.31; 95% confidence interval: 1.02-1.67, p=0.021, respectively). No difference was observed in food intake. CONCLUSION: The oral combination of codeine and acetaminophen significantly improves sleep quality and daily activity level within the first 24-72 h post-photorefractive keratectomy compared to a placebo.
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 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".