Effects of gabapentin on anxiety level and pain scores in shock period after burn
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Introduction and aims.The close relationship between pain, anxiety and necessitates that both the managed simultaneously in the treatment of burn injured patients. Material and methods .A prospective randomized controlled study carried out in a burn unit in Kaunas medical Hospital during period 12/2010-12/2012. The pain treatment protocol was standardized with morphine patient-controlled analgesia (PCA) to all patients. The patients of treatment group received 1200 mg per day of oral gabapentin (3 days), starting on the 1st post-burn day. Subjective experience of the pain was measured by short form McGill Pain Questionnaire (SF-MPQ), the pain intensity - by visual analog scale (VAS). Hospital Anxiety and Depression (HAD) scale was used to assess anxiety in shock period after burn.Results During study period 53 patients with severe burn (TBSA>10%) were included (control group n=29, gabapentin group n=24). The two groups were homogenic according to patients' age, BMI, burn size, type. There was a stronger female distribution in the gabapentin group (p=0,024). Higher levels of anxiety were associated with higher pain sensation at the admission to hospital time at rest and movement (respectively r=0,521, p< 0.001 and r=0,61, p< 0, 001). The anxiety level were significantly lower in gabapentin group in 3rd treatment day (p=0,029). Patients in control group experienced more pain than patients in gabapentin group at the rest and at movement during 72 h period after burn (p< 0,001). Conclusion(s) Administration of gabapentin 1200 mg during 72 h after burn reduces anxiety and pain scores at rest and movement.
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 | 0.000 |
| 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".