Effect of butorphanol nasal spray administration on patient cooperativity during labor epidural placement: a single-center randomized controlled trial
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Epidural block stands as the prevailing, secure, and efficient approach to labor analgesia. Inadequate maternal cooperation not only hampers anesthesia effectiveness but also may lead to severe consequences, including nerve damage due to positional changes. METHODS: A randomized controlled clinical trial with 200 participants was conducted to compare painless delivery with epidural alone versus a combination of butorphanol nasal spray preceding epidural administration for painless delivery. The objective was to assess the combined approach's efficacy in diminishing maternal pain and enhancing maternal compliance. RESULTS: Within 8-min post-anesthesia, the combined analgesic group (EXP group) exhibited significantly lower maternal pain intensity scores, improved maternal cooperation, reduced visual analogue scale (VAS) pain, and McGill scores compared to the epidural alone group (CTRL group). No statistically significant differences emerged in 24-h postpartum blood loss, labor duration, or lactation period. Neonatal indicators, including umbilical artery blood PCO2, base excess of extracellular fluid (BE-ecf), weight, and Apgar score, showed no significant differences between the EXP and CTRL groups. However, the EXP group demonstrated a higher umbilical artery blood pH than the CTRL group. The EXP group exhibited significantly higher probabilities of pain intensity scores ≤ 6, maternal cooperation scores ≤ 3, VAS scores ≤ 3 at 6-, 8-, and 10-min post-anesthesia, and McGill scores of 0 compared to the CTRL group. CONCLUSION: Butorphanol nasal spray emerges as an effective means to alleviate pain during epidural puncture in labor analgesia, markedly improving maternal anesthesia adherence. This combined analgesic method proves to be a safe and efficacious approach for maternal pain relief during labor.
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 | 0.005 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.007 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 0.001 |
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".