MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4296783489 · doi:10.1155/2022/3603949

[Retracted] Impacts of Ultrasound‐Guided Nerve Block Combined with General Anesthesia with Laryngeal Mask on the Patients with Lower Extremity Fractures

2022· article· en· W4296783489 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Xiaoxu Yang, Lei Bao, Xue Gong, Hui Zhong

Post-publication record

NatureRetraction
ReasonConcerns/Issues about Data;Concerns/Issues about Results and/or Conclusions;Concerns/Issues about Referencing/Attributions;Concerns/Issues about Peer Review;Investigation by Journal/Publisher;Investigation by Third Party;Paper Mill;Computer-Aided Content or Computer-Generated Content;Unreliable Results and/or Conclusions;
Date9/27/2023 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

VenueJournal of Environmental and Public Health · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicAnesthesia and Pain Management
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineAnesthesiaPerioperativeAnestheticHeart rateBlood pressureVisual analogue scaleNerve blockHemodynamicsMean arterial pressureGeneral anaesthesiaSurgeryInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Objective . Surgical reduction is the leading approach to patients with lower extremity fractures. The options of anesthetic drugs during surgery are of great significance to postoperative recovery of patients. There is no consensus on the optimum anesthesia method for patients undergoing lower extremity fracture surgery. Our study is aimed at investigating the impacts of nerve block combined with general anesthesia on perioperative outcomes of the patients. Methods . In this retrospective study, 48 patients experienced general anesthesia only, and 42 patients received never block combined with general anesthesia. The perioperative hemodynamics was recorded, including mean arterial pressure (MAP), oxygen saturation of blood (SpO2), and heart rate (HR). Visual analogue scale (VAS) and Montreal Cognitive Assessment (MoCA) were carried out to evaluate postoperative pain and cognitive status. Furthermore, adverse reactions and recovery condition were observed between the patients receiving different anesthesia methods. Results . At 15 minutes and 30 minutes after anesthesia, as well as 5 minutes after surgery, significant lower MAP was observed in the patients treated with general anesthesia (83.04 ± 8.661, 79.17 ± 9.427, 86.58 ± 8.913) compared to those receiving never block combined with general anesthesia (90.43 ± 4.618, 88.74 ± 6.224, 92.21 ± 4.015) ( P < 0.05), and compared with general anesthesia group (68.5 ± 7.05, 69.63 ± 7.956, 72.75 ± 8.446), the combined anesthesia group (73.52 ± 9.451, 74.17 ± 10.13, 77.62 ± 9.768) showed obvious higher HR ( P < 0.05). No significant difference in SpO 2 was found between the two groups at multiple time points ( P > 0.05). As for the score of VAS and MoCA, remarkably lower VAS and higher MoCA at 6 h, 12 h and 24 h after surgery were presented in the combined anesthesia group compared to general anesthesia group ( P < 0.05). At 24 h after surgery, the two groups showed normal cognitive function (26.33 ± 0.7244 vs. 28.55 ± 0.7392). Incidence of nausea and vomiting in the combined anesthesia group was lower than that of the general anesthesia group ( P < 0.05). The time to out‐of‐bed activity and hospital stay were shorter in the combined anesthesia group compared with general anesthesia ( P < 0.05). Conclusion . The application of never block combined with general anesthesia contributed to the stability of hemodynamics, alleviation of postoperative pain and cognitive impairment, along with decrease in adverse reactions and hospital stay in the patients with lower extremity fractures.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.011

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

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 head0.010
GPT teacher head0.221
Teacher spread0.210 · 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.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
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

Citations3
Published2022
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Environmental and Public HealthSame topicAnesthesia and Pain ManagementFrench-language works237,207