MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4382456855 · doi:10.4103/sja.sja_633_22

Reflections on: Sphenopalatine ganglion block in patients with post-dural puncture headache

2023· article· en· W4382456855 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

aboutThe title or abstract carries a Canadian signal from the geographic lexicon.
no affNo Canadian affiliation: this work is invisible to an affiliation-only frame.
No Canadian affiliation. An affiliation-only frame, the usual design, would never have seen this work. It is one of the works that make the case for inverting the frame.

Bibliographic record

VenueSaudi Journal of Anaesthesia · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicAnesthesia and Pain Management
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicinePost-dural-puncture headacheGanglionBlock (permutation group theory)Epidural blockSurgeryAnesthesiaAnatomyCombinatorics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Dear Editor, I read with great interest the recently published research article on the efficacy of the sphenopalatine ganglion (SPG) block in patients with post-dural puncture headache (PDPH).[1] I congratulate Gayathri et al.[1] for this wonderful study and wish to present my insights on that article. Gayathri et al.[1] concluded that the SPG block “greatly reduced” the requirement for an epidural blood patch (EBP). However, only one patient out of 20 patients in the control group required an EBP, while no patient in the SPG block group required it. This I believe, is neither clinically nor statistically a “great reduction”. Gayathri et al.[1] stated in the “Discussion” section that Akin et al.[2] (cited as reference #16 in the study by Gayathri et al.[1]) in their retrospective study observed that there was a significant reduction of pain in patients who had SPG block upon analyzing it on 26 non-obstetric patients. However, it was only a case report of only one patient, and only a bilateral greater occipital nerve block was used, and not an SPG block. Besides, Akin et al.[2] did not use the patient global impression of change (PGIC) scale as mentioned by Gayathri et al.[1] Regarding the advantages of ropivacaine over bupivacaine, Gayathri et al.[1] stated in the “Discussion” section that the cardiovascular and central nervous system effects are minimal with ropivacaine and cited a total of 4 references for that (References #15, 18–20 of Gayathri et al.[1]). While there is no dispute about that, one of the references cited (Reference #18 of Gayathri et al.[1]) is not in accordance with that statement. Jespersen et al.[3] used the mixture of a1:1 solution of 4% lidocaine plus 0.5% ropivacaine and compared it with a placebo (saline). The main point to note from their study is that they observed that the efficacy of SPG block in avoiding the EBP was similar between the 2 groups; hence, not attributable to any local anesthetics.[3] Lastly, there were some violations of the “Vancouver style” for citation of references in that published study.[1] For instance, in the “Discussion” section, reference #17, 18 were cited without citing references #15, 16 anywhere in the text before this. Again, reference #16 was cited after the citation of reference #18, 19, 20. Financial support and sponsorship Nil. Conflicts of interest There are no conflicts of interest.

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.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation 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 score0.009
Threshold uncertainty score0.444

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

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

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 head0.016
GPT teacher head0.276
Teacher spread0.259 · 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