Examining Canadian Trauma Centres’ Analgesic Protocols for Rib Fractures
Bibliographic record
Abstract
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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 teacher head, 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".