Lidocaine—Prilocaine Cream versus Tetracaine Gel for Procedural Pain in Children
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To determine the relative efficacy of lidocaine-prilocaine and tetracaine for procedural pain in children. METHODS: Systematic review was performed (MEDLINE1990-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.
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 | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".