A clinical study on inhaling vaporous Tramadol for post-operative analgesia of patients accepted pharyngeal surgery
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Objective:To explore the analgesic effect of ultrasonic nebulization of tramadol for postoperative patients after accepted pharyngeal surgery, to find a new way of administration of tramadol.Method:A total of 84 patients undergoing pharyngeal operation under general anesthesia via endotracheal medication were divided into test and control groups. Patients in test group inhaled 100 mg tramadol resolved with 10 mL normal salinevia ultrasonic nebulization, while those in control were given 0.9% sodium chloride ultrasonic nebulization only. The pain degrees of both group patients before and after the nebulization were evaluated with McGill pain scoring method, and indexes including respiration rate,heart rate,mean arterial pressure, blood saturation of oxygen of all patients were monitored and recorded.And the first time to start to eat of them was recorded as well.Conclusion:Patients of test group had the pain relieved 15 minutes after tramadol ultrasonic nebulization, and the analgesic effect could be stable half an hour after nebulization. Compared with patients of control group, there was a statistical difference between the two groups （P<0.01）. The first time of starting to eat were 6.50 h±1.44 h after operation in test group and 9.32 h±2.42 h in control group respectively. There was also a statistical difference between them（P<0.01）.Conclusion:Ultrasonic nebulization inhalation of Tramadol for patients has a good analgesic effect, which is a new, safe, effective, noninvasive and simple method of medication.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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) | 0.002 | 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".