The Effect of Scheduled Intravenous Acetaminophen in an Enhanced Recovery Protocol Pathway in Patients Undergoing Major Abdominal Procedures: A Prospective, Randomized, and Placebo-Controlled Clinical Trial
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: Enhanced recovery protocols (ERPs) utilize multi-modal analgesia regimens. Individual regimen components should be evaluated for their analgesic efficacy. We evaluated the effect of scheduled intravenous (IV) acetaminophen within an ERP on analgesia and recovery after a major abdominal surgery. DESIGN: This study is a prospective, randomized, double-blinded clinical trial. SETTING: The study setting was a tertiary care, academic medical center. SUBJECTS: Adult patients scheduled for elective major abdominal surgical procedures. METHODS: Patients in group A received 1 g IV acetaminophen, while patients in group P received IV placebo every six hours for 48 hours postoperatively within an ERP. Pain scores, opioid requirements, nausea and vomiting, time to oral intake and mobilization, length of stay, and patient satisfaction scores were measured and compared. RESULTS: From 412 patients screened, 154 patients completed the study (Group A: 76, Group P: 78). Primary outcome was the number of patients with unsatisfactory pain relief, defined as a composite of average Numeric Rating Scale (NRS) scores above 5 and requirement of IV patient-controlled analgesia for pain relief during the first 48 hours postoperatively, and was not significantly different between the two groups (33 (43.4%) in group A versus 42 (53.8%) patients in group P, P = .20). Opioid consumption was comparable between two groups. Group A utilized significantly less postoperative rescue antiemetics compared to group P (41% vs. 58%, P = .02). CONCLUSIONS: Scheduled administration of IV acetaminophen did not improve postoperative analgesia or characteristics of postoperative recovery in patients undergoing major abdominal surgery within an ERP pathway.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.019 | 0.048 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| 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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".