MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4411202512 · doi:10.1016/j.acepjo.2025.100191

Comparing the Costs Associated with Anxiolytic Agents for Reducing Distress in Children Undergoing Laceration Repair in the Emergency Department

2025· article· en· W4411202512 on OpenAlexafffundabout
N. Tran, Yi-Shu Lin, Petros Pechlivanoglou, Samina Ali, Doug Coyle, Naveen Poonai, Anna Heath

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of the American College of Emergency Physicians Open · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicPediatric Pain Management Techniques
Canadian institutionsChildren’s Health Research InstituteWestern UniversityUniversity of OttawaWomen and Children’s Health Research InstituteUniversity of AlbertaInstitute for Work & HealthMcGill UniversityInstitute for Clinical Evaluative SciencesSickKids FoundationHospital for Sick Children
FundersCanadian Institutes of Health ResearchCanada Research Chairs
KeywordsMedicineDexmedetomidineEmergency departmentPsychological interventionMidazolamEmergency medicineDistressHealth careMedical emergencyAnesthesiaIntensive care medicineSedationPsychiatry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Objectives The use of procedural medications for anxiolysis during laceration repair in children can mitigate distress, facilitate procedures, and avoid physical restraint. However, the optimal medication for use in the pediatric emergency department is unclear. This study compares hospital length of stay (LOS) and costs for 4 different procedural medications for pediatric laceration repair from the perspective of the Canadian health care system. Methods We used an individual-level state-transition model to compare (i) intranasal midazolam (INM), (ii) inhaled nitrous oxide (N 2 O), (iii) intranasal dexmedetomidine, and (iv) intravenous ketamine (IVK). Model inputs were informed by literature and expert consultations. LOS included time before, during, and after laceration repair, adjusting for adequacy of interventions and adverse events. Healthcare costs included personnel, equipment, and medication costs. We evaluated the drivers of model uncertainty using the TRansparent Uncertainty aSsessmenT (TRUST) tool and value of information analyses. Results The estimated LOS for N 2 O, INM, IVK, and intranasal dexmedetomidine were 78.34, 82.13, 103.37, and 114.55 minutes with the per-person estimated costs of $176.7, $122.79, $167.16, and $165.07, respectively. These results were limited by the low quality of available evidence for model inputs. The key parameters contributing to decision uncertainty were procedure time for N 2 O and IVK, with an expected value of $5.31 and $0.44 per person, respectively. Conclusion INM had the lowest expected healthcare cost, whereas children receiving N 2 O had the shortest expected LOS. Decision uncertainty was driven by the lack of relevant studies examining the length of procedure with N 2 O and IVK use.

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: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.060
Threshold uncertainty score0.381

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.002
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
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 head0.023
GPT teacher head0.326
Teacher spread0.304 · 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 designObservational
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

Citations1
Published2025
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of the American College of Emergency Physicians OpenSame topicPediatric Pain Management TechniquesFrench-language works237,207