Intermittent tramadol vs tramadol administration via patient-controlled pump after lumbar discectomy: a randomized controlled trial
Bibliographic record
Abstract
AIM: To compare the effect of intermittent tramadol dosing vs tramadol administration via patient-controlled pump on pain after lumbar discectomy. METHODS: This randomized prospective study enrolled 100 patients who underwent elective LIV-LV lumbar discectomy in the neurosurgery department at Sestre Milosrdnice University Hospital Center from May 2016 to July 2017. Patients were randomized to receive either tramadol (600 mg daily) via a patient-controlled analgesia (PCA) pump or intermittently. Pain was evaluated by the Croatian version of Short-Form McGill Pain Questionnaire. RESULTS: Forty percent of patients were women. The median (interquartile range) age of the patients was 51 (40-61) years. The groups did not differ in pain at 7 pm on the day of discectomy. However, in the morning and evening on the first postoperative day and in the morning and evening of the second postoperative day, the PCA group had significantly lower pain (P=0.023, P<0.001, P<0.001, P=0.026, respectively). CONCLUSION: This is the first study that used the Short Form McGill Pain Questionnaire to compare the effect of tramadol administration via PCA pump and intermittent administration on pain after LIV-LV discectomy in a neurosurgery department. Tramadol showed a good analgesic efficacy in lumbar spine surgery; tramadol via PCA controlled pain more effectively than intermittently administered tramadol.
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 | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 0.001 |
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.
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".