MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4210882823 · doi:10.1097/ta.0000000000003562

Intravenous lidocaine for the management of traumatic rib fractures: A double-blind randomized controlled trial (INITIATE program of research)

2022· article· en· W4210882823 on OpenAlexaff

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Journal of Trauma: Injury, Infection, and Critical Care · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicTrauma Management and Diagnosis
Canadian institutionsLondon Health Sciences CentreWestern University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsRandomized controlled trialLidocaineLocal anestheticRib cageCompression (physics)

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Traumatic rib fractures (TRFs) are common with a 10% incidence in all trauma patients and are associated with significant morbidity and mortality. Adequate analgesia is paramount for preventing pulmonary complications and death. Evidence exists for intravenous (IV) lidocaine's effectiveness and safety in postoperative thoracic and abdominal surgery, and we hypothesized that it would be effective in patients with TRFs. METHODS: We conducted a single-center, double-blind, randomized control trial comparing IV lidocaine plus usual analgesics to placebo infusion plus usual analgesics for 72 hours to 96 hours. Participants were adult trauma patients diagnosed with two or more TRFs requiring hospital admission. The primary outcome was mean pain score at rest and with movement, as measured on the visual analog scale. Secondary outcomes included patient satisfaction and opioid requirements (standardized total morphine equivalents). The study was powered to detect a 20% reduction in pain scores, which has been deemed clinically meaningful. RESULTS: Thirty-six patients were enrolled and randomized to IV lidocaine or placebo. Comparison of the mean visual analog scale pain scores demonstrated significant pain reduction with movement in the lidocaine group compared with placebo (7.05 ± 1.72 vs. 8.22 ± 1.28, p = 0.042). Although pain scores at rest were reduced in the lidocaine group, this difference was not statistically significant (3.37 ± 2.00 vs. 3.82 ± 1.97; p = 0.519). Patient satisfaction was higher in the lidocaine group than the placebo group, although this did not reach statistical significance (8.3; interquartile range [IQR], 7.0-9.6 vs. 6.3; IQR, 5.2-7.1; p = 0.105). Total morphine equivalents were lower in the lidocaine group than the placebo group, but this difference did not reach statistical significance (167; IQR, 60-340 vs. 290; IQR 148-390; p = 0.194). CONCLUSION: These results demonstrate that lidocaine has a beneficial analgesic effect in patients with TRFs. Future work is needed to evaluate lidocaine's ability to reduce patient important consequences of inadequate analgesia. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Therapeutic/Care Management; Level II.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.006
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation 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 score0.020
Threshold uncertainty score0.411

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0060.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.075
GPT teacher head0.428
Teacher spread0.353 · 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 teacher head, 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

Citations13
Published2022
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe Journal of Trauma: Injury, Infection, and Critical CareSame topicTrauma Management and DiagnosisFrench-language works237,207