Prophylactic Use of Ondansetron for Hypotension Prevention in Cases Undergoing Cesarean Section Post-Spinal Anesthesia
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: Ondansetron is being administrated to prevent post spinal hypotension and its affects are promising. Globally, researches being conducted to identify the prophylactic effects of ondansetron. Aim: To determine the frequency of maternal hypotension with or without intravenous administration of ondansetron in cases undergoing cesarean section post-spinal anesthesia. Study design: Randomized controlled trial Place and duration of study: Jinnah Postgraduate Medical Centre, Karachi from 1st February 2017 to 1st August 2017. Methodology: Eighty four pregnant females between 18-35 years of age enrolled for cesarean-section under spinal anesthesia were included. Patients having a history of cardiorespiratory or renal disorders, as well as bradycardia or tachycardia, hypo/hypertension and or hyperglycemia were excluded. The patients were randomly divided into Group A (ondansetron) and Group B (control) by using codes placed in sealed, sequentially numbered envelopes. The mean value of arterial blood pressure and of the heart rate was documented at 3 min interval for 10 minutes and then every 5 minutes till 30 minutes after spinal anesthesia. Results: The mean age of patients in group A was 26.57±5.28 years and in group B was 26.88±4.62 years. Thirty two (38.10%) were ASA I and 52 (61.90%) were ASA II. The mean age of patients in group A was 39.36±1.65 weeks and in group B was 39.79±1.47 weeks. Mean arterial pressure was 138.44±13.59mmHg. Frequency of maternal hypotension in Group A was seen in 08 (19.05%) while in Group B was seen in 22 (52.38%) patients (p=0.001). Conclusion: There is less maternal hypotension with intravenous administration of ondansetron in patients undergoing cesarean section under spinal anesthesia. Keywords: Spinal anesthesia, Hypotension, Ondansetrone
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 | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
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.
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".