Lidocaine vaginal gel versus lidocaine paracervical block for analgesia during oocyte retrieval
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Evidence from randomized trials suggests that pain relief during oocyte retrieval is superior when adjunctive paracervical block is used in addition to sedation alone. Vaginal application of lidocaine gel is a non-invasive alternative to lidocaine paracervical block. The goal of the present trial was to compare analgesia with lidocaine vaginal gel versus lidocaine paracervical block. METHODS: A parallel-group randomized trial of adjunctive lidocaine vaginal gel versus adjunctive lidocaine paracervical block (with sedation for both groups) was performed in participants undergoing oocyte retrieval. Measured outcomes were subjective pain experiences. Subjects provided self-reported ratings of pain and anxiety. Visual analogue scales were used to measure pain during different procedural stages. The McGill Pain Questionnaire was used to measure pain character and the total pain experience. RESULTS: During application of lidocaine, pain ratings were less for vaginal gel than paracervical block. In contrast, during insertion of the aspiration needle and aspiration of follicles, pain ratings were greater for lidocaine vaginal gel. Total pain experience was greater with lidocaine vaginal gel. CONCLUSIONS: Subjective measures of pain intensity and the total pain experience were greater with lidocaine vaginal gel compared with lidocaine paracervical block.
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 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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, 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".