Consensus recommendations for paediatric airway topicalisation using lidocaine
Bibliographic record
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: Lidocaine is commonly used to provide airway topicalisation in children. However, there is a paucity of evidence and no guidance available on safe dosing practices. METHODS: An international expert multidisciplinary, multi-society working group conducted a systematic review of the literature, followed by a three-round Delphi process to produce consensus recommendations. These recommendations aim to improve the safety of children having their airways topicalised with lidocaine. RESULTS: The systematic review identified 26 articles, with 21 recommendations agreed across five domains of practice: dosing; recovery; adverse reactions; institutional responsibilities; and learning from events. Evidence was limited and mainly grades C and D but the strength of the recommendations, based on the expert consensus, was mainly moderate (65-79% consensus) and strong (≥ 80% consensus). DISCUSSION: It is hoped these consensus recommendations will promote safe practice when lidocaine is used for airway topicalisation in children.
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 | 0.081 | 0.196 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.005 | 0.013 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.016 | 0.009 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.006 | 0.007 |
| Open science | 0.010 | 0.007 |
| Research integrity | 0.010 | 0.011 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.011 | 0.005 |
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".