MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4206509250 · doi:10.1186/s12871-018-0608-3

RETRACTED ARTICLE: Effect of perioperative infusion of Dexmedetomidine combined with Sufentanil on quality of postoperative analgesia in patients undergoing laparoscopic nephrectomy: a CONSORT-prospective, randomized, controlled trial

2018· article· en· W4206509250 on OpenAlexaff
Fuxi Song, Chunmiao Ye, Qi Feng, Ping Zhang, Xuexiang Wang, Yanfeng Lü, Alejandro Fernandez-Escobar, Chao Zheng, Liang Li

Post-publication record

NatureRetraction
ReasonError in Data;Error in Results and/or Conclusions;
Date2/13/2019 0:00
Flagged by OpenAlex?Yes

Source: Retraction Watch, joined by DOI. OpenAlex records retraction as is_retracted, a boolean over a state space with at least four values, so it cannot express an expression of concern, a correction or a reinstatement; it reports them as false, which reads as “fine”.

Bibliographic record

VenueBMC Anesthesiology · 2018
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicAnesthesia and Sedative Agents
Canadian institutionsCanada Research ChairsUniversity of Toronto
FundersNatural Science Foundation of Shandong ProvinceNational Natural Science Foundation of China
KeywordsMedicineSufentanilDexmedetomidineAnesthesiaPerioperativeRandomized controlled trialAnesthesiologySedationNephrectomyPatient-controlled analgesiaAdverse effectAbdominal surgerySurgeryAnalgesicKidneyInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Postoperative pain is one of the most common symptoms after surgery, which brings physical discomfort to patients. In addition, it may cause a series of complications, and even affect the long-term quality of life. The purpose of this prospective, randomized, double-blinded, controlled trial is to investigate the efficacy and safety of dexmedetomidine combined with sufentanil to attenuate postoperative pain in patients after laparoscopic nephrectomy. METHODS: Ninety patients undergoing laparoscopic nephrectomy were randomized into three groups: the control (sufentanil 0.02 μg/kg/h, Group C), sufentanil plus low dose of dexmedetomidine (0.02 μg/kg/h each, Group D1), and sufentanil plus high dose of dexmedetomidine (0.04 μg/kg/h, Group D2). The patient-controlled analgesia was programmed to deliver a bolus dose of 0.5 ml, followed by an infusion of 2 ml/h and a lockout time of 10 min. The primary goal was to calculate the cumulative amount of self-administered sufentanil; the secondary goals were to estimate pain intensity using the numerical rating scale (NRS), level of sedation, the first bowel movement, concerning adverse effects as well as duration of postoperative hospital stay. RESULTS: The total consumption of sufentanil in group D1 and D2 were significantly lower than in group C during the first 8 h after surgery (P < 0.05), whereas there were no statistically significant differences (P > 0.05) between group D1 and D2. Compared with group C, the NRS scores at rest during first 8 h after surgery were significantly lower in group D1 (P < 0.05). The NRS scores, neither at rest nor with movement, show statistically significant differences between group D1 and D2 at each time point following surgery (P > 0.05). The time to first flatus was shorter in group D1 compared with the control group (P < 0.05). In addition, compared with group C, group D1 and D2 had a shorter time for first defecation (P < 0.05). CONCLUSIONS: Dexmedetomidine combined with sufentanil showed better postoperative analgesia without adverse effects, as well as facilitated bowel movements for patients undergoing laparoscopic nephrectomy. TRIAL REGISTRATION: We registered this study in a Chinese Clinical Trial Registry (ChiCTR) centre on Dec 23 2015 and received the registration number: ChiCTR-IPR-15007628 .

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)0.010
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.026
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesResearch integrity
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 score0.996
Threshold uncertainty score0.054

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0100.026
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0040.004
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0040.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0160.001

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 head0.015
GPT teacher head0.291
Teacher spread0.276 · 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.

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

Citations2
Published2018
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueBMC AnesthesiologySame topicAnesthesia and Sedative AgentsFrench-language works237,207