Evaluation of eutectic lidocaine/prilocaine cream (EMLA) for steroid joint injection in children with juvenile rheumatoid arthritis: a double blind, randomized, placebo controlled trial.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the efficacy of eutectic lidocaine/prilocaine cream (EMLA) in reducing the pain associated with steroid joint injection in children with juvenile arthritis. METHODS: A randomized, double blind, placebo controlled parallel group trial. Thirty-one children (ages 8-18 yrs) scheduled for steroid injection into a knee were randomized into groups having either 2.5 g lidocaine/prilocaine cream or placebo cream applied to the injection site 60-90 min before the procedure. Patients assessed the pain associated with initial needle insertion and subsequent steroid injection using a 10 cm visual analog scale. RESULTS: No significant difference was found in the pain reported after needle insertion or steroid injection between the lidocaine/prilocaine cream group (n = 17) and the placebo group (n = 14). There was a trend toward an association of lower median scores with the pain of steroid injection in the lidocaine/prilocaine group (6 mm) compared with the placebo group (22 mm). CONCLUSION: Application of 2.5 g lidocaine/prilocaine cream for 60-90 min had no statistically significant analgesic effect on pain associated with injections of steroids into the knees of children with juvenile arthritis.
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 | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".