Impact of vitamin C on the reduction of opioid consumption after an emergency department visit for acute musculoskeletal pain: a double-blind randomised control trial protocol
Bibliographic record
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: Recent evidence has shown that vitamin C has some analgesic properties in addition to its antioxidant effect and can, therefore, reduce opioid use during recovery time. Vitamin C analgesic effect has been explored mostly during short-term postoperative context or in disease-specific chronic pain prevention, but never after acute musculoskeletal injuries, which are often seen in the emergency department (ED). The protocol's primary aim is to compare the total morphine 5 mg pills consumed during a 2-week follow-up between patients receiving vitamin C or a placebo after ED discharge for an acute musculoskeletal pain complaint. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: We will conduct a two-centre double-blind randomised placebo-controlled trial with 464 participants distributed in two arms, one group receiving 1000 mg of vitamin C two times a day for 14 days and another one receiving a placebo. Participants will be ≥18 years of age, treated in ED for acute musculoskeletal pain present for less than 2 weeks and discharged with an opioid prescription for home pain management. Total morphine 5 mg pills consumed during the 2-week follow-up will be assessed via an electronic (or paper) diary. In addition, patients will report their daily pain intensity, pain relief, side effects and other types of pain medication or other non-pharmacological approach used. Three months after the injury, participants will also be contacted to evaluate chronic pain development. We hypothesised that vitamin C, compared with a placebo, will reduce opioid consumption during a 14-day follow-up for ED discharged patients treated for acute musculoskeletal pain. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: This study has received approval from the Ethics Review Committee from the 'Comité d'éthique de la recherche du CIUSSS du Nord-de-l'Île-de-Montréal (No 2023-2442)'. Findings will be disseminated through scientific conferences and peer-reviewed journal publication. The data sets generated during the study will be available from the corresponding author on reasonable request. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: NCT05555576 ClinicalTrials.Gov PRS.
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 | 0.013 | 0.015 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.006 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.013 | 0.006 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.004 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.010 | 0.005 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.047 | 0.008 |
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".