Randomized controlled trial to compare the effect of simple distraction interventions on pain and anxiety experienced during conscious surgery
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: High levels of anxiety during surgery are associated with poorer post-surgical outcomes. This prospective, non-blinded randomized controlled trial aimed to compare the effectiveness of four intraoperative distraction interventions for anxiety and pain management during minimally invasive venous surgery under local anaesthetic. METHODS: 407 patients presenting with varicose veins at a private clinic, were randomized to one of four intraoperative distraction interventions or treatment as usual. All participants received endovenous thermoablation and/or phlebectomies of varicose veins. After losses to follow-up, 398 participants were entered into the analysis. Participants were randomly allocated to one of the following intraoperative distraction techniques: patient selected music (n = 85), patient selected DVD (n = 85), interaction with nurses (n = 81), touch (stress balls) (n = 80) or treatment as usual (TAU, n = 76). The state scale of the STAI, the Short-form McGill pain questionnaire and numeric rating scales were used to assess intraoperative pain and anxiety. RESULTS: Intraoperative anxiety ratings were significantly lower when participants interacted with nurses, used stress balls or watched a DVD during surgery compared to treatment as usual. Intraoperative pain ratings were significantly lower than treatment as usual when participants interacted with nurses or used stress balls during surgery. Patients' satisfaction was not significantly impacted by intraoperative distractions. CONCLUSIONS: The use of simple intraoperative distraction techniques, particularly interacting with nurses, using stress balls or watching a DVD during surgery conducted under local anaesthetic can significantly improve patients' experiences.
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 | 0.006 | 0.013 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.009 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.019 | 0.002 |
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".