A Randomized Controlled Trial of Clinical Hypnosis as an Opioid-Sparing Adjunct Treatment for Pain Relief in Adults Undergoing Major Oncologic Surgery
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract: Clinical hypnosis is an effective strategy for managing acute pain in the surgical setting. However, the opioid sparing effects of clinical hypnosis are not as well understood. This pre-registered (NCT03730350) randomized, controlled trial (RCT) examined the impact of clinical hypnosis, pre- and post-surgery, on opioid consumption during hospitalization as well as on measures of pain intensity, pain interference, depressed mood, anxiety, sleep, and pain catastrophizing. Participants (M = 57.6 years; SD = 10.9) awaiting oncologic surgery were randomized to treatment-as-usual (n = 47) or hypnosis (n = 45). Intent-to-treat analyses were conducted using linear mixed effects modeling. A significant Group × Time interaction, F (6, 323.34) = 3.32, p = 0.003, indicated an opioid sparing effect of clinical hypnosis during the acute postoperative period. Hypnosis also protected against increases in pain catastrophizing at one-week after surgery, F (1, 75.26) = 4.04, p = 0.048. A perioperative clinical hypnosis intervention had a sparing effect on opioid consumption in-hospital after major oncologic surgery. These findings extend the efficacy of clinical hypnosis as an adjunct tool for perioperative pain management. Keywords: clinical hypnosis, oncologic surgery, postoperative opioid use, postoperative pain, pain catastrophizing
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.366 | 0.281 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.
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".