MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2280003778

Systematic review and meta-analysis assessing the effectiveness of local anesthetic, vasoconstrictive, and lubricating agents in flexible fibre-optic nasolaryngoscopy.

2008· review· en· W2280003778 on OpenAlexaff
Anne Conlin, Laurie McLean

Bibliographic record

VenuePubMed · 2008
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicNasal Surgery and Airway Studies
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Ottawa
Fundersnot available
KeywordsGynecologyMedicineSurgery
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Flexible fibre-optic nasolaryngoscopy (FFN) is a common otolaryngology procedure that patients may find uncomfortable. Preparative agents, including topical anesthetic, vasoconstrictive, and lubricating agents, have been studied in randomized controlled trials (RCTs). METHODS: A systematic review and meta-analysis was conducted on RCTs published between January 1966 and October 2005 and indexed to MEDLINE, CINAHL, and Cochrane CENTRAL databases. Methodologic validity was evaluated. Primary outcomes were patients' evaluation of FFN. Secondary outcomes were endoscopists' evaluation of FFN. RESULTS: Eight RCTs were identified studying five preparative agent classes: vasoconstrictors plus topical anesthetics, vasoconstrictors alone, topical anesthetics alone, lubricating agents, saline, and no treatment. The systematic review found no difference in patients' evaluation of pain and discomfort for cocaine versus Co-phenylcaine (two RCTs), Co-phenylcaine versus no active agent (three RCTs), topical anesthetics versus no active preparative agent (two RCTs), vasoconstrictors versus no active preparative agent (two RCTs), and lubricating agents versus nothing. Two RCTs found that Co-phenylcaine causes higher taste unpleasantness, and one RCT found that topical anesthetics cause higher pain. Lubricating agents increase ease of examination but decrease quality of view (one RCT). Meta-analysis of two studies comparing Co-phenylcaine with other preparative agents found no difference on pain scores. CONCLUSIONS: Cumulative evidence from eight RCTs shows no difference in pain scores when preparative agents with vasocontrictive, topical anesthetic, or lubricating properties are used. Co-phenylcaine may cause higher taste unpleasantness, and lidocaine may cause more pain. For the endoscopist, lubricating agents may aid in the examination but compromise the quality of the view.

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)0.019
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.057
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Meta-analysis · Consensus signal: Meta-analysis
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.024
Threshold uncertainty score0.100

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0190.057
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0030.002
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0240.040
Bibliometrics0.0080.007
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0040.002
Open science0.0030.002
Research integrity0.0030.003
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 head0.098
GPT teacher head0.352
Teacher spread0.254 · 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 designMeta-analysis
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

Citations21
Published2008
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePubMedSame topicNasal Surgery and Airway StudiesFrench-language works237,207