Decreasing the Pain of Finger Block Injection: Level II Evidence
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
BACKGROUND: There is level II evidence that volunteers prefer the single subcutaneous injection in the midline of the proximal phalanx with lidocaine and epinephrine (SIMPLE) finger block over the classic two dorsal injection block technique. The purpose of this study was to possibly further decrease the pain of digital block injection by examining the effect of the duration of injection on the pain felt by volunteers receiving the SIMPLE block at two different injection rates. METHODS: Forty healthy blinded volunteers were injected 2 mL of lidocaine 1 % and epinephrine 1/100,000 in the digital palmar crease of both long fingers, one at a time. Two different rates of injection were used: 8 and 60 s. Pain scores were measured using a visual analogue scale and the volunteers were asked which of injection techniques they preferred. RESULTS: The visual analogue scale results revealed less pain with the slow injection (p < 0.001). Thirty three out of 40 volunteers preferred the slow injection rate. No difference could be attributed to sex of participants or to the first hand injected. CONCLUSION: Blinded volunteers preferred digital blocks injected over 60 s to the more rapid 8 s. Decreasing the pain of injection only takes a minute of our valuable time for finger blocks.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 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