MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1997452386 · doi:10.1185/03007995.2014.915212

Use of 5% lidocaine medicated plasters for the treatment of pain in routine hospital practice: patient reported pain, functioning and satisfaction

2014· article· en· W1997452386 on OpenAlexaff
Sharmila Khot, Christopher Ll. Morgan, S Kadambande, Chris Poole

Bibliographic record

VenueCurrent Medical Research and Opinion · 2014
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicPain Mechanisms and Treatments
Canadian institutionsPharma Medica Research (Canada)
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineDiscontinuationLidocainePhysical therapyPain reliefPatient satisfactionPain scoreAnesthesiaSurgery

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

OBJECTIVE: 5% lidocaine medicated plasters are a topical option in the treatment of peripheral neuropathic pain, as monotherapy or as an adjunct to systemic medication. This study sought to determine the impact of lidocaine plaster use on self-reported pain, functioning and patient satisfaction within a large teaching hospital. RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS: Patients were selected from the pain and rheumatology outpatient departments in Cardiff, Wales (2008-9). Postal surveys were sent to patients prescribed lidocaine plaster asking whether patients currently used the plaster and, if not, reason for discontinuation. Patients were asked to record pain score before and after therapy initiation, percentage pain relief, duration of effectiveness and impact on functioning. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Pain scores, pain relief and levels of functioning before and after treatment. RESULTS: A total of 850 surveys were dispatched; 408 (48.0%) responses received; 197 (48.3%) patients were current users at survey completion. Median pain score prior to plaster use was 8 (IQR 7-9). One month after initiation, median pain score was 6 (4-8, p < 0.001) overall and 5 (4-7, p < 0.001) for current users. Median pain relief, after initial month of plaster use, was 30% (10-60%) for all patients and 50% (30-70%) for current users, whilst pain relief at time of survey was 30% (0-60%) and 50% (30-70%), respectively. A total of 181 (93.3%) current users claimed the plasters were effective. All three measures of functioning were significantly improved in current users: sleep (63.3% versus 20.1%, p < 0.001), mood (59.2% versus 18.6%, p < 0.001) and activity level (50.0% versus 19.5%, p < 0.001). Median satisfaction was 5 (IQR 1-8) for all patients and 7 (5-9) for current plaster users. CONCLUSIONS: The results of this study need to be considered within the context of a self-reported survey. However, pain, functioning and patient satisfaction were significantly improved in current users of 5% lidocaine medicated plasters.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.007
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.010

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.007
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.109
GPT teacher head0.409
Teacher spread0.300 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations8
Published2014
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCurrent Medical Research and OpinionSame topicPain Mechanisms and TreatmentsFrench-language works237,207