Can Topical Anesthetic Reduce the Pain Associated with Diagnostic Blocks of the Lumbosacral Spine?: Table 1
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the effectiveness of a topical local anesthetic cream (5% liposomal lidocaine) in reducing needle-induced pain in patients investigated for suspected zygapophysial (z-joint) or sacroiliac (SI) joint pain. DESIGN: Triple-blinded randomized controlled trial. Setting. Interventional fluoroscopy suite. STUDY POPULATION: Eighteen patients presenting with chronic mechanical low back pain. INTERVENTIONS: Thirty minutes prior to diagnostic z- or SI joint blocks, equivalent amounts of topical 5% liposomal lidocaine cream was applied to one side of the low back and a placebo cream to the other. The treatment side and injection order were randomized and the patient, injectionist, and data recorder were blinded. OUTCOME MEASURES: The subjects provided numerical rating scores of pain intensity immediately following each phase of the injection (skin penetration, deep, overall). Scores were analyzed with dependent t-tests. RESULTS: The injection associated pain was significantly less during the skin penetration phase on the side of the local anesthetic vs the placebo cream (3.0/10 vs 4.2/10; P = 0.002). No significant differences were found during the deep phase or for the injection procedure overall. CONCLUSIONS: Five percent liposomal lidocaine cream significantly reduces the pain associated with the skin penetration phase of lumbosacral diagnostic blocks but does not change the pain associated with the deep phase or the injection procedure overall. Its usefulness for this application is questionable.
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 | 0.000 | 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) | 0.009 | 0.001 |
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".