MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3128798498 · doi:10.1186/s12871-021-01263-3

Effects of an individualized analgesia protocol on the need for medical interventions after adenotonsillectomy in children: a randomized controlled trial

2021· article· en· W3128798498 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Jian Guo, Peijun Zhuang, Kun Liu, Yuanyuan Wan, Xuan Wang

Bibliographic record

VenueBMC Anesthesiology · 2021
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicObstructive Sleep Apnea Research
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineRandomized controlled trialFentanylAnesthesiaPain medicineTonsillectomyMorphinePolysomnographyObstructive sleep apneaAnesthesiologyApneaSurgery

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: It has been proposed that the dose of rescue opioids should be individually titrated to the severity of obstructive sleep apnea after adenotonsillectomy. However, a sleep study is not always available before adenotonsillectomy. This randomized, controlled and blinded trial evaluated a strategy of pain control individualized to the results of a fentanyl test, rather than the results of polysomnography, in children after adenotonsillectomy. METHODS: A total of 280 children (3-10 years old) undergoing elective adenotonsillectomy were randomized into an individualized protocol (IP) group or a conservative protocol (CP) group. All patients received a fentanyl test before extubation. Pain was assessed every 10 min in the recovery room, and rescue morphine was given when the Children's Hospital of Eastern Ontario Pain Scale (CHEOPS) score was > 6. In the IP group, the dose of rescue morphine was individualized to the results of the fentanyl test (10 μg/kg in the case of a positive result and 50 μg/kg in the case of a negative result). In the CP group, the dose was fixed (25 μg/kg). The primary outcome was the percentage of patients requiring at least one medical intervention. The secondary outcome was the median duration of CHEOPS scores > 6. RESULTS: Fewer patients in the IP group than in the CP group required medical interventions [11.9% (16/134) vs 22.3% (29/130), P = 0.025]. The median duration of CHEOPS scores > 6 was shorter in the IP group than in the CP group [20 (95% CI: 17 to 23) min vs 30 (95% CI: 28 to 32) min, P < 0.001]. CONCLUSIONS: Compared with a conservative dosing approach, this individualized protocol may improve analgesia without a significant increase in respiratory adverse events. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov NCT02990910 , registered on 13/12/2016.

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)0.006
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.011
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 score0.007
Threshold uncertainty score0.033

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0060.011
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0060.003
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.002
Scholarly communication0.0020.002
Open science0.0020.001
Research integrity0.0040.004
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0070.001

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 head0.019
GPT teacher head0.349
Teacher spread0.330 · 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

Citations6
Published2021
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueBMC AnesthesiologySame topicObstructive Sleep Apnea ResearchFrench-language works237,207