MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

A double‐blind randomised controlled trial assessing the efficacy of topical lidocaine in extended flexible endoscopic nasal examinations

2011· article· en· W2124561332 on OpenAlex

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.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueClinical Otolaryngology · 2011
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldDentistry
TopicDental Anxiety and Anesthesia Techniques
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Ottawa
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineLidocaineDouble blindRandomized controlled trialAnesthesiaSurgeryDermatologyAlternative medicinePlacebo

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

OBJECTIVE: To test the hypothesis that using lidocaine nasal spray will result in improved pain and comfort outcomes during an extended flexible endoscopic nasal examination. DESIGN: A split-body, double-blind, placebo-controlled randomised trial. After receiving a rinse of oral mouthwash (Listerine(®)), patients were randomised to receive placebo in one nasal cavity and 30 mg of topical lidocaine in the other. SETTING: A tertiary care centre outpatient Otolaryngology clinic. PARTICIPANTS: Twenty-two patients who required an extended bilateral flexible endoscopic nasal examination. An extended nasal examination consisted of an examination of a minimum of two osteomeatal regions on each side of the nasal cavity. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Discomfort and pain were assessed using a 100-mm Visual Analogue Scale (VAS). Our study utilised the definition of pain based on International Association for the Study of Pain. Pain was defined as an unpleasant sensory and emotional experience associated with actual or potential tissue damage. Discomfort was defined as the overall unpleasant experience of the procedure. This included all aspects of the examination such as the pain or other negative sensations associated with the examination, any side effects associated with the application of the nasal sprays as well as any anxiety associated with the examination. A Wilcoxon sign-rank test was used for the primary outcome measures. RESULTS: There was a significant reduction in discomfort scores on the treatment side of the nasal cavity compared with the control side (median VAS score of 18.6 mm versus 44.6 mm; P = 0.01). The change in pain between the treatment side compared with the control side did not reach our definition of statistical significance (5.1 mm versus 9.2 mm; P = 0.05). Patients with an active or uncontrolled inflammatory disorder of the nasal cavity experienced a significantly greater reduction in pain compared to those without an inflammatory condition (median change of the VAS score, -15.6 versus +1.0; P = 0.01). CONCLUSIONS: After a rinse with oral mouthwash, the use of lidocaine results in a significant reduction in the discomfort associated with an extended bilateral flexible endoscopic nasal examination. Patients undergoing such an examination would benefit from the application of lidocaine after masking the negative flavour using oral mouthwash.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Randomized trial · Consensus signal: Randomized trial
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.234
Threshold uncertainty score0.570

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.108
GPT teacher head0.404
Teacher spread0.296 · 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