MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W7113771615

The usage of analgesics among arthritis patients in Hospital Selayang

2015· other· en· W7113771615 on OpenAlexaboutno aff

Bibliographic record

VenueUiTM Institutional Repositories (Universiti Teknologi MARA) · 2015
Typeother
Languageen
Field
Topic
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsAnalgesicOsteoarthritisPain scoreArthritisRheumatologyPain managementDescriptive statisticsAcetaminophen
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Background: It is found that almost all prescribers prescribe analgesics and Non­steroidal Anti-inflammatories Drugs (NSAIDs) for arthritis patients, as one of the pain management strategies other than Disease-modifying Anti Rheumatic Drugs (DMARDs). Today, clinical experience portrays that analgesics are not used as recommended. Thus, this study is to determine the patterns of analgesic use and the relationship with pain. Method: The survey was conducted at rheumatology clinic in Hospital Selayang. Patients were selected by using convenient sampling method. The pain score was measured by using Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index (WOMAC). This followed by the difference in pain between those agreeing and not agreeing with the statements given which were determined by using independent t­test. The relationship between the pain score and the regularity of analgesics use were assessed by using correlation. Results: 130 (100%) completed the study. 34 of the respondents (26.2%) reported of having no pain, 26 respondents (20.0%) described of having slight pain, 25 respondents (19.2%) having moderate pain, 45 respondents (34.6%) having severe pain and none of them having extreme pain. Descriptive statistics and T-test were used to determine the patterns of analgesic use and the difference in pain between those agreeing and disagreeing with the pain management statements respectively. It found that those having high mean pain score agreed that they took analgesics regularly. Correlation study had been conducted too and it showed that the increase in pain score does affect the increase in regularity of analgesic use with p <0.05. Conclusion: The patterns of analgesic use vary from patients to patients, but, generally we conclude that higher pain intensity results a higher regularity of analgesic use. Pharmacists are encouraged to give appropriate guidelines regarding analgesic use to patients in order to ensure safety use of analgesics.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
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 score0.005
Threshold uncertainty score0.010

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.006
GPT teacher head0.202
Teacher spread0.195 · 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
Published2015
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueUiTM Institutional Repositories (Universiti Teknologi MARA)French-language works237,207