Pain and discomfort during flexible nasolaryngoscopy: a randomized, controlled trial assessing the efficacy of oral mouthwash and topical lidocaine.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: To test the hypothesis that using Listerine mouthwash prior to administration of topical nasal lidocaine will result in improved pain and comfort outcomes during flexible nasolaryngoscopy (FNL). DESIGN: Randomized, controlled trial. SUBJECTS: A total of 120 patients were randomized to receive a combination of either treatment or placebo mouthwash followed by treatment or placebo nasal spray prior to an FNL examination. OUTCOME MEASURES: Pain and discomfort using a 100 mm visual analogue scale. RESULTS: The use of lidocaine significantly reduced pain (p = .011) and discomfort (p = .008) compared to placebo nasal spray. Using Listerine prior to administration of lidocaine resulted in the largest reductions. Patients having an extended nasal examination reported more pain (p = .001) and discomfort (p = .03) levels while demonstrating a greater benefit of topical lidocaine compared to those undergoing a primary laryngeal examination (p < .001). DISCUSSION: Using Listerine prior to application of lidocaine nasal spray reduces the pain and discomfort of FNL. This effect was most clinically significant in patients undergoing an extended or full bilateral nasal examination.
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 | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".