Does nasogastric feeding reduce distress after cleft palate repair in infants?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
AIMS: To determine the effect of nasogastric (NG) feeding compared with oral feeding on morphine requirements after primary cleft palate repair, and secondarily on enteral intake. METHODS: This was a pilot study involving 50 infants, aged five to ten months, who were randomised to receive NG or oral feeding after palate repair. All infants received the same anaesthetic and analgesic management. Post-operatively, paracetamol and ibuprofen were administered regularly and intravenous (IV) morphine was given on demand using a nurse-controlled analgesia device. The primary outcome measure was the total morphine consumption in the first 24 hours. Secondary outcome measures included the numbers of painful episodes and the volumes of IV fluid and enteral feed administered. RESULTS: Of the 50 infants enrolled, 18 and 23 received either NG or oral feeding, respectively, and completed the study. Numbers of painful episodes and morphine consumption in the first 24 hours were similar in each group. Volumes of feed administered in the first 24 hours were significantly different: the NG group received approximately three times more than the oral group. Nine of the oral group required IV fluids in the 24 hours compared with none in the NG group. CONCLUSION: NG feeding was more effective than oral feeding in the first 24 hours after surgery, but numbers of painful episodes recorded were similar. Further research is required.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 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) | 0.000 | 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".