1,720,974 research outputs found

    Analgesic effects of intravenous flunixin and intrafunicular lidocaine or their combination for castration of lambs.

    Full text link
    Abstract Objective: To analyse the effectiveness of intrafunicular lidocaine and intravenous flunixin for reducing pain and signs of stress in lambs undergoing surgical castration. Design: Randomised controlled trial. Setting: One university teaching hospital in Italy. Participants: 30 healthy male lambs, 9-12 weeks old. Intervention: Allocation to five groups: a control group (C), undergoing general anaesthesia but not castration; a surgery group (S), undergoing orchiectomy without analgesic treatment; a surgery-lidocaine group (SL), undergoing orchiectomy and receiving intrafunicular 2 per cent lidocaine solution; a surgery-flunixin group (SF), undergoing orchiectomy and receiving intravenous flunixin; a surgery-flunixin-lidocaine group (SFL), undergoing orchiectomy and receiving both intrafunicular lidocaine and intravenous flunixin. Main outcome measures: Nociception and stress were assessed through intraoperative indicators, serum cortisol concentration, glycaemia, behaviour, immune response and clinical evaluation of the heart rate (HR), respiratory rate and rectal temperature after surgery. Results: Groups S and SL showed increased values of intraoperative HR, mean arterial pressure and postoperative cortisol concentration. In group SFL, cortisol values were similar to those of group C. No other difference could be detected. Conclusions: The combination of intravenous flunixin and intrafunicular lidocaine reduced the pain and discomfort of lambs castrated under general anaesthesia. Intrafunicular lidocaine alone did not prevent pain or discomfort associated with castration

    Going Beyond Counting First Authors in Author Co-citation Analysis

    Full text link
    The present study examines one of the fundamental aspects of author co-citation analysis (ACA) - the way co-citation counts are defined. Co-citation counting provides the data on which all subsequent statistical analyses and mappings are based, and we compare ACA results based on two different types of co-citation counting - the traditional type that only counts the first one among a cited work's authors on the one hand and a non-traditional type that takes into account the first 5 authors of a cited work on the other hand. Results indicate that the picture produced through this non-traditional author co-citation counting contains more coherent author groups and is therefore considerably clearer. However, this picture represents fewer specialties in the research field being studied than that produced through the traditional first-author co-citation counting when the same number of top-ranked authors is selected and analyzed. Reasons for these effects are discussed
    corecore