Efficacy and adverse effects of lower doses of ketorolac; a systematic review and meta-analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: Ketorolac, a non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drug, is proposed to have a ceiling effect. We studied if ketorolac at lower doses was as effective and safe as the standard doses. AREA COVERED: Randomized trials on different doses of ketorolac were searched in MEDLINE, Embase, Scopus, and Web of Science from the inception date to 12 December 2024. The extent of change in pain, pain relief, need for rescue analgesia, reduction in patient opioid consumption, and adverse event rates were outcomes of interest. The risk of bias was assessed using the Cochrane Risk of Bias tool version 2. EXPERT OPINION/COMMENTARY: In acute, postoperative, and cancer pain, there was no difference in the analgesic effect of lower doses of ketorolac in comparison to routine doses. In addition, the results did not show higher adverse effects. PROTOCOL REGISTRATION: www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero identifier is CRD42023480153.
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 | 0.019 | 0.041 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.019 | 0.023 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.006 | 0.007 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 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; 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".