MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4388658243 · doi:10.1111/anae.16173

The analgesic effect of transversalis fascia plane block after caesarean section under spinal anaesthesia with intrathecal morphine: a randomised controlled trial

2023· article· en· W4388658243 on OpenAlexaff
Leyla Baghirzada, A. Walker, Hai Yu, Ryan Endersby

Bibliographic record

VenueAnaesthesia · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicAnesthesia and Pain Management
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Calgary
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineBupivacaineAnesthesiaSalineMorphineOpioidAnalgesicCaesarean sectionFasciaLower segment caesarean sectionSurgeryPregnancyInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Summary We aimed to test whether bilateral injection of bupivacaine 0.25% in the transversalis fascia plane reduced 24 h opioid dose after singleton caesarean section, under spinal anaesthesia with intrathecal morphine, compared with saline 0.9% injectate. We allocated randomly 52 women to bilateral injection of 20 ml saline 0.9% on arrival in the post‐anaesthesia care unit and 54 women to bilateral injection of 20 ml bupivacaine 0.25% (with adrenaline 2.5 μg.ml ‐1 ). Mean (SD) cumulative morphine equivalent opioid dose 24 h after saline injection was 32.3 (28.3) mg and 18.7 (20.2) mg after bupivacaine injection, a mean (95%CI) difference of 13.7 (4.1–23.2) mg (p = 0.006). Median (IQR [range]) time to first postoperative opioid dose was 3.0 (1.5–10.3 [0.0–57.4]) h after saline 0.9% and 8.2 (2.7–29.6 [0.2–55.4]) h after bupivacaine 0.25% (p = 0.054). Transversalis fascia plane with bupivacaine 0.25% with adrenaline reduced postoperative pain at rest during 48 h (0–10‐point scale) by a mean (95%CI) of 0.9 (0.2–1.6) points (p = 0.013) and on movement by 1.2 (0.4–2.1) points (p = 0.004). We conclude that transversalis fascia plane bupivacaine 0.25% with adrenaline reduces pain and opioid dose after caesarean section compared with saline 0.9%.

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 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)0.002
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: Randomized trial · Consensus signal: Randomized trial
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.106
Threshold uncertainty score0.986

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
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 head0.008
GPT teacher head0.240
Teacher spread0.232 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

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

Citations11
Published2023
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAnaesthesiaSame topicAnesthesia and Pain ManagementFrench-language works237,207