MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W2125821753 · doi:10.1345/aph.1a138

Lidocaine—Prilocaine Cream versus Tetracaine Gel for Procedural Pain in Children

2002· review· en· W2125821753 on OpenAlexaff
Anna Taddio, Mona GY Gurguis, Gideon Koren

Bibliographic record

VenueAnnals of Pharmacotherapy · 2002
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicPediatric Pain Management Techniques
Canadian institutionsHospital for Sick Children
Fundersnot available
KeywordsTetracaineMedicineLidocainePrilocaineAnesthesiaTopical anestheticLocal anestheticForearmSurgery

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

AbstractOBJECTIVE:To determine the relative efficacy of lidocaine—prilocaine and tetracaine for procedural pain in children.METHODS:Systematic review was performed (MEDLINE 1990–June 2001) of all studies comparing the efficacy of these 2 modalities of pain relief in children undergoing painful cutaneous procedures. Search terms included lidocaine, prilocaine, tetracaine, and anesthesia.RESULTS:Eight studies compared lidocaine—prilocaine with tetracaine in children for 4 different procedures: intravenous cannulation, venipuncture, Port-a-Cath puncture, and laser therapy. When used as labeled (60 min for lidocaine—prilocaine, 30 min for tetracaine), the 2 modalities provided similar analgesic efficacy. When both anesthetics were applied for a similar duration of time (40 min, 60 min, 2 h), tetracaine provided superior anesthesia. Tetracaine was commonly associated with erythema, and lidocaine—prilocaine was associated with blanching of the skin.CONCLUSIONS:Lidocaine—prilocaine and tetracaine appear to be comparable for procedural pain relief when used as recommended. Tetracaine is more efficacious than lidocaine—prilocaine when both anesthetics are applied for the same amount of time. ResumenOBJETIVO:Determinar la eficacia relativa de lidocaína—prilocaína y tetracaína para dolor asociado a procedimientos en niños.MÉTODOS:Revisión sistemática de todos los estudios que han comparado estas 2 modalidades de tratamiento para aliviar el dolor en niños sometidos a procedimientos cutáneos dolorosos.RESULTADOS:Hubo 8 estudios que compararon lidocaína—prilocaína con tetracaína usadas en 4 procedimientos diferentes en niños. Estos procedimientos fueron: inserción de cánula intravenosa, punción venosa, punción utilizando un porta-cáteter y terapia láser. Cuando se utilizaron según se recomienda (60 minutos para lidocaína—prilocaína y 30 minutos para tetracaína) las 2 modalidades proveyeron eficacia analgésica similar. La tetracaína proveyó anestesia superior cuando ambos anestésicos se aplicaron por una duración de tiempo similar (40 minutos, 60 minutos o 2 horas). La tetracaína se asoció comúnmente con eritema y lidocaína—prilocaína con blanquición de la piel.CONCLUSIONES:La lidocaína—prilocaína y tetracaína parecen ser comparables para aliviar dolor asociado a procedimientos cuando se usan según se recomienda. La tetracaína es más efectiva que lidocaína—prilocaína cuando ambos anestésicos se aplican por la misma duración de tiempo. RésuméOBJECTIF:Évaluer l'efficacité analgésique du gel de tétracaïne 4% et de la crème de lidocaïne 2.5% et de prilocaïne 2.5% utilisés lors d'interventions cutanées douloureuses en pédiatrie.REVUE DE LITTÉRATURE:Recherche de la base de données MEDLINE (janvier 1990 à juin 2001) des études d'efficacité et d'innocuité de ces 2 formulations et revue systématique des bibliographies des études identifiées.RÉSUMÉ:Huit études comparatives ont évalué le degré d'analgésie dermique du gel de tétracaïne et de la crème de lidocaïne et de prilocaïne utilisée pour soulager la douleur associée à 4 interventions cutanées spécifiques, notamment la canulation intraveineuse, la ponction veineuse, le traitement au laser de tâches de vin, et la ponction par port-o-cath. Lorsque ces formulations sont utilisées selon les recommandations du manufacturier (tétracaïne et lidocaïne-prilocaïne à ětre appliquer respectivement 30 et 60 minutes avant l'intervention), les 2 formulations procurent une analgésie similaire. Pour un temps d'application similaire de 40, 60, ou de 120 minutes avant l'intervention, la tétracaïne procure une analgésie d'efficacité supérieure. La tétracaïne est fréquemment associée avec l'apparition d'érythème alors que l'utilisation de la crème de lidocaïne et de prilocaïne entraîne souvent une pâleur locale de la peau.CONCLUSIONS:Le gel de tétracaïne et la crème de lidocaïne et de prilocaïne semblent ětre d'efficacité analgésique comparable lorsque ces formulations sont utilisées selon les recommandations du manufacturier. Par contre, la durée d'action de l'analgésie dermique est supérieure avec la tétracaïne.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.011
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Systematic review · Consensus signal: Systematic review
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.004
Threshold uncertainty score0.016

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.011
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0040.003
Bibliometrics0.0040.003
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.000

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 head0.136
GPT teacher head0.449
Teacher spread0.313 · 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

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designSystematic review
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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".

Quick stats

Citations76
Published2002
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAnnals of Pharmacotherapy→Same topicPediatric Pain Management Techniques→French-language works237,207→