Satisfaction and dissatisfaction with pain relief and birth experience among induced and spontaneous-onset labours ending in vaginal birth: A prospective cohort study.

Objective: To assess pain relief and overall birth experience in induced vs. spontaneous-onset labours and to clarify variables among induced parturients determining satisfaction and dissatisfaction. Study design: A prospective study of 2042 women. 575 women with induced and 1467 with spontaneous-onset labour answered multiple questions in a questionnaire regarding the experience of birth giving. Satisfaction was numerically assessed via a visual analogue scale (VAS 0-10). Results: Induction of labour (IOL) did not worsen the average experience of pain relief, but the proportion of women dissatisfied with pain relief was slightly higher after IOL compared with spontaneous-onset labour (SOL). IOL was associated with lower satisfaction with overall birth experience compared with SOL (VAS 8.0 vs. 8.4; p < 0.001). Among IOL parturients incorrect timing of pain relief was strongly associated with dissatisfaction with pain relief, as were deficient information and induction with misoprostol. Epidural blockade was the most important factor preventing dissatisfaction with pain relief. Unsatisfactory overall experience of birth was associated with deficient pain relief, its incorrect timing or deficient information, as well as vacuum extraction as the mode of delivery. Conclusions: Induction of labour is a risk factor of dissatisfaction regarding pain relief and overall birth experience. The strongest impact on dissatisfaction among induced parturients concerning pain relief was delayed timing of effective labour analgesia. Poor pain relief, its incorrect timing and deficient information on pain relief were strong predictive factors of dissatisfaction with the overall birth experience.

Oral versus patient-controlled intravenous administration of oxycodone for pain relief after cesarean section.

PURPOSE: The optimal postoperative analgesia after cesarean section (CS) remains to be determined. The primary objective of this study was to assess whether oral oxycodone provides the same or better pain control and satisfaction with pain relief as oxycodone given intravenously using a patient-controlled analgesia (PCA) infusion device. The secondary objectives were to compare the gastrointestinal symptoms and postsurgical recovery of the two groups. METHODS: This prospective randomized trial was conducted at a University Hospital between February 2015 and June 2017. Altogether 270 CS patients were randomly assigned to receive postoperative oxycodone pain relief by IV PCA (n = 133) or orally (n = 137). Pain control and satisfaction with pain treatment were assessed by a numeric rating scale (NRS) at 2, 4, 8, and 24 h postoperatively. RESULTS: No differences were found in NRS pain scores or satisfaction between the groups except at 24 h pain when coughing; there was a statistically significant difference favoring the IV PCA group (p = 0.006). In the IV PCA group, the patients experienced more nausea at 4 h (p = 0.001) and more vomiting at 8 h (p = 0.010). Otherwise, postoperative recovery was similar in both groups. The equianalgesic dose of oxycodone was significantly smaller in the oral group (p = 0.003). CONCLUSIONS: This study indicates that oral oxycodone provides pain control and satisfaction with pain relief equal to IV oxycodone PCA for postoperative analgesia after cesarean section. Satisfaction with pain treatment was high in both groups, and both methods were well tolerated. Early nausea was less common with oral medication.

Improved statistical modeling of tumor growth and treatment effect in preclinical animal studies with highly heterogeneous responses in vivo.

PURPOSE: Preclinical tumor growth experiments often result in heterogeneous datasets that include growing, regressing, or stable growth profiles in the treatment and control groups. Such confounding intertumor variability may mask the true treatment effects especially when less aggressive treatment alternatives are being evaluated. EXPERIMENTAL DESIGN: We developed a statistical modeling approach in which the growing and poorly growing tumor categories were automatically detected by means of an expectation-maximization algorithm coupled within a mixed-effects modeling framework. The framework is implemented and distributed as an R package, which enables model estimation and statistical inference, as well as statistical power and precision analyses. RESULTS: When applied to four tumor growth experiments, the modeling framework was shown to (i) improve the detection of subtle treatment effects in the presence of high within-group tumor variability; (ii) reveal hidden tumor subgroups associated with established or novel biomarkers, such as ERß expression in a MCF-7 breast cancer model, which remained undetected with standard statistical analysis; (iii) provide guidance on the selection of sufficient sample sizes and most informative treatment periods; and (iv) offer flexibility to various cancer models, experimental designs, and treatment options. Model-based testing of treatment effect on the tumor growth rate (or slope) was shown as particularly informative in the preclinical assessment of treatment alternatives based on dietary interventions. CONCLUSIONS: In general, the modeling framework enables identification of such biologically significant differences in tumor growth profiles that would have gone undetected or had required considerably higher number of animals when using traditional statistical methods.