MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4414495759 · doi:10.5811/westjem.24945

Examining Canadian Trauma Centres’ Analgesic Protocols for Rib Fractures

2025· article· en· W4414495759 on OpenAlexaffabout
S. Yu, Petrease H Patton, Kelly Vogt, Fran Priestep, Richard Hilsden, Shane Smith, Ian Ball

Bibliographic record

VenueWestern Journal of Emergency Medicine · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicTrauma Management and Diagnosis
Canadian institutionsVictoria HospitalLondon Health Sciences CentreWestern University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsAnalgesicLidocainePain managementProspective cohort studyEmergency department

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

INTRODUCTION: Rib fractures are common in patients with blunt thoracic trauma, and their associated pain causes significant morbidity and mortality. Adequate analgesia is crucial to prevent rib fracture-associated pulmonary complications. However, current analgesic modalities have drawbacks, and the optimal analgesia protocol remains elusive. Intravenous (IV) lidocaine infusions have a well-established safety profile and efficacy in other patient populations and may benefit patients with traumatic rib fractures. To better understand current practices and to inform the design of a multi-centre trial, we believe that a study to determine Canadian trauma centres' current analgesic practices is warranted. This study describes the current familiarity and use of IV lidocaine infusions for management of rib fracture pain. Secondary outcomes included the identification of common Canadian analgesic protocols for rib fractures and willingness to participate in a future multi-centre trial of lidocaine for these traumatic injuries. METHODS: We distributed an online survey to 14 Canadian trauma centres. Study questions were designed to address four themes: trauma centre characteristics; pain management strategies; current use of IV lidocaine infusions; and interest in future study participation. The analysis included a frequencies analysis and a thematic analysis of descriptions. RESULTS: The medical directors of 12 trauma centres (85%) responded. Six of those centres (50%) experience > 450 annual trauma admissions with Injury Severity Scores > 12. Six sites (50% of respondents) have a rib-fracture analgesic protocol. Four centres (33% of respondents) frequently use IV lidocaine for rib fractures, and 10 (83% of respondents) believe further research with IV lidocaine is needed. CONCLUSION: Canadian trauma centres' current practices for rib-fracture pain management are variable. Prospective work is needed to evaluate IV lidocaine as an analgesic for traumatic rib fractures.

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)0.012
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.041
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation 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 score0.135
Threshold uncertainty score0.304

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0120.041
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0030.004
Science and technology studies0.0040.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.001
Open science0.0020.002
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

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 head0.112
GPT teacher head0.411
Teacher spread0.299 · 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 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

Citations0
Published2025
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueWestern Journal of Emergency MedicineSame topicTrauma Management and DiagnosisFrench-language works237,207