Randomized Trial of 10 mL and 20 mL of 2% Intraurethral Lidocaine Gel and Placebo in Men Undergoing Flexible Cystoscopy
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: To determine if 20 mL of 2% intraurethral lidocaine gel is superior to 10 mL of 2% lidocaine or sterile lubricant for flexible cystoscopy in men. PATIENTS AND METHODS: A randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial was conducted. Sixty men scheduled to undergo diagnostic flexible cystoscopy were randomized to receive either 20 mL of placebo gel (Group I), 10 mL, of 2% lidocaine gel (Group II) or 20 mL of 2% lidocaine gel (Group III). A penile clamp was applied for 15 minutes to ensure consistent indwelling time in all patients. Patients recorded their pain on a 10-cm non-graphical visual analog scale prior to cystoscopy as a baseline, during the procedure, and immediately after the procedure. Patients also recorded their pain and willingness to have the same anesthetic on a 4-point descriptive scale. Heart rate and mean arterial blood pressure (MAP) were recorded at specific intervals throughout the procedure, and increases in mean arterial pressure were considered objective evidence of patient pain. RESULTS: Pain perception was not statistically different in the groups (Group I 4.65, Group II 3.93, Group III 3.57; P = 0.406). Pain assessment and willingness to have the same anesthetic also did not differ statistically among the groups. Similarly, differences in the increases in MAP were not statistically significant between groups. CONCLUSION: Instillation of 20 mL or 10 mL of 2% lidocaine gel has no advantage over plain lubricant in providing anesthesia for flexible cystoscopy in men.
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.
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 | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 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 it