Efficacy and safety of low dose oral ketamine for controlling pain and distress during intravenous cannulation in children: a double-blind, randomized, placebo-controlled trial
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: Ketamine is widely used in infants and young children for procedural sedation and anesthesia.The aim of this study was to evaluate the efficacy and safety of low dose oral ketamine to control pain and distress in children during intravenous (IV) cannulation.Methods: This is a prospective, randomized, double-blind study, including children aged between 3 and 6 years requiring a non-emergent IV-line placement.Children were randomly assigned to two groups, treated either with oral ketamine or a placebo.All patients were monitored for vital signs.Pain was assessed using the Children's Hospital of Eastern Ontario Pain Scale (CHEOPS) and Wong-Baker Faces Pain Rating Scale (WBFS) scales and sedation using a 5-point sedation score.The facility of IV-line placement was measured by a 3-point scale.Adverse effects were recorded after 1 and 24 hours.Results: A total of 79 and 81 children were entered in the ketamine and placebo groups, respectively.The heart and respiratory rates increased significantly in the placebo group.The median CHEOPS 4 (95% confidence interval [CI]: 3, 4, P < 0.001) and WBFS 6 (95% CI: 4, 6, P < 0.001) scores decreased statistically in the ketamine group.IV-line placement was 50% easier in the ketamine group (95% CI: 37%, 63%, P < 0.001).No serious adverse effects were observed in all cases.Conclusions: Low dose oral ketamine effectively decreased the pain and distress during IV cannulation in children without any significant adverse reactions.
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 | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 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".