Using a topical anaesthetic cream to reduce pain during sharp debridement of chronic leg ulcers
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This multicentre, double-blind, placebo-controlled, parallel-group study assessed the efficacy and safety of using Emla (lignocaine/prilocaine) anaesthetic cream to achieve pain control during sharp debridement of chronic leg ulcers of arterial, venous or arteriovenous aetiology. A total of 101 patients (51 Emla, 50 placebo), aged 29-99 years, who had experienced pain associated with previous debridement were included. Patients with an amide anaesthetic allergy, anaesthetic diabetic ulcers, or ulcers > 50 cm2 were excluded. Debridement was initiated approximately 30 minutes after the application of a thick layer of Emla or placebo cream to an ulcer occluded with a plastic wrap. The patient and investigator assessed the pain associated with debridement on a 100 mm visual analogue scale (VAS). The median patient VAS scores were 18 mm and 53.5 mm in the Emla and placebo groups, respectively (p < 0.0001). The corresponding investigator values in the two groups were 20 mm and 49.5 mm, respectively (p = 0.004). Local reactions were mainly transient and mild, and were observed in roughly the same percentage of placebo and Emla-treated patients. After a 30-minute application Emla cream significantly reduced the pain of debridement compared with the placebo.
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 | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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 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".