MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4402515647 · doi:10.1097/spc.0000000000000726

Managing acute pain with inhaled methoxyflurane in non-cancer patients: a review of the latest evidence

2024· review· en· W4402515647 on OpenAlexaff
Partha Patel, Carmen Faouk Al Aadah, Lelia F. Al Aadah, Henry C. Y. Wong, Shing Fung Lee, Muna Alkhaifi, Joel Finkelstein, Leon Rivlin

Bibliographic record

VenueCurrent Opinion in Supportive and Palliative Care · 2024
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicPediatric Pain Management Techniques
Canadian institutionsHumber River Regional HospitalHealth Sciences CentreSunnybrook Health Science CentreUniversity of GuelphUniversity of Ottawa
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineMethoxyfluraneIntensive care medicinePsychological interventionAdverse effectAnxietyPsychosocialMedical emergencyAnesthesiaPsychiatryInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

PURPOSE OF THE REVIEW: Penthrox® (inhaled methoxyflurane, IMF) is an inhaled analgesic used for the treatment of moderate-to-severe acute pain. It has various advantages including the capacity for being self-administered in the presence of healthcare providers (HCPs), rapid onset and offset, and having documented evidence for minimal adverse events post-use. In a variety of non-oncological settings such as pre-hospital transport and minor outpatient procedures, amongst others, IMF has significantly reduced acute pain. As IMF has the capacity to provide appreciable pain relief but is not as widely used as other acute analgesics (i.e., opioids), this review of past and current literature hopes to explore the impact of inhaled IMF on patient outcomes, procedures where it could be used, and to inform readers about this compound. RECENT FINDINGS: In general, patients who used IMF had decreased pain, improved psychosocial factors (i.e., reduced anxiety, improved satisfaction), and minimal adverse events thereby being concluded as safe for use. SUMMARY: Future use in remote medical interventions such as military contexts, in emergency room settings, and administration under the supervision of first responders such as non-paramedic and non-HCPs further broadens the scope of settings where IMF can meaningfully be implemented.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.004
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.004
Threshold uncertainty score0.013

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.002
Bibliometrics0.0030.003
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.000

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 head0.107
GPT teacher head0.456
Teacher spread0.349 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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

Citations0
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCurrent Opinion in Supportive and Palliative CareSame topicPediatric Pain Management TechniquesFrench-language works237,207