Intravenous acetaminophen for postoperative pain in the neonatal intensive care unit: A protocol for a pilot randomized controlled trial (IVA POP)
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: In neonates, uncontrolled pain and opioid exposure are both correlated with short- and long-term adverse events. Therefore, managing pain using opioid-sparing approaches is critical in neonatal populations. Multimodal pain control offers the opportunity to manage pain while reducing short- and long-term opioid-related adverse events. Intravenous (IV) acetaminophen may represent an appropriate adjunct to opioid-based postoperative pain control regimes. However, no trials assess this drug in patients less than 36 weeks post-conceptual age or weighing less than 1500 g. OBJECTIVE: The proposed study aims to determine the feasibility of conducting a randomized control trial to compare IV acetaminophen and fentanyl to a saline placebo and fentanyl for patients admitted to the neonatal intensive care unit (NICU) undergoing major abdominal or thoracic surgery. METHODS AND DESIGN: This protocol is for a single-centre, external pilot randomized controlled trial (RCT). Infants in the NICU who have undergone major thoracic or abdominal surgery will be enrolled. Sixty participants will undergo 1:1 randomization to receive intravenous acetaminophen and fentanyl or saline placebo and fentanyl. After surgery, IV acetaminophen or placebo will be given routinely for eight days (192 hours). Appropriate dosing will be determined based on the participant's gestational age. Patients will be followed for eight days after surgery and will undergo a chart review at 90 days. Primarily feasibility outcomes include recruitment rate, follow-up rate, compliance, and blinding index. Secondary clinical outcomes will be collected as well. CONCLUSION: This external pilot RCT will assess the feasibility of performing a multicenter RCT comparing IV acetaminophen and fentanyl to a saline placebo and fentanyl in NICU patients following major abdominal and thoracic surgery. The results will inform the design of a multicenter RCT, which will have the appropriate power to determine the efficacy of this treatment. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov NCT05678244, Registered December 6, 2022.
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 | 0.054 | 0.049 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.006 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.009 | 0.005 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.007 | 0.007 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.059 | 0.011 |
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".