MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2324929075 · doi:10.1097/bpo.0000000000000408

Does Topical Anesthetic Reduce Pain During Intraosseous Pin Removal in Children? A Randomized Controlled Trial

2015· article· en· W2324929075 on OpenAlexafffund
Sukhdeep Dulai, Kathleen Firth, Khaled A. Almansoori, Dominic Cave, Kyle Kemp, Anelise Silveira, Manoj K. Saraswat, Lauren A Beaupré

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Pediatric Orthopaedics · 2015
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicPediatric Pain Management Techniques
Canadian institutionsAlberta Health ServicesStollery Children's HospitalUniversity of AlbertaWomen and Children’s Health Research Institute
FundersCanadian Institutes of Health Research
KeywordsMedicineRandomized controlled trialTopical anestheticAnesthesiaAnestheticLocal anestheticSurgery

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: The purpose of this study was to determine the effectiveness of topical liposomal lidocaine in reducing the pain perceived by children undergoing percutaneous intraosseous pin (PP) removal in the outpatient orthopaedic clinic. METHODS: A triple-blinded, randomized, placebo-controlled clinical trial comparing topical liposomal lidocaine to a placebo was conducted at the Stollery Children's Hospital between September 2008 and February 2011. Subjects undergoing the removal of PP in the orthopaedic outpatient clinic between ages 3 and 16 years were recruited. A computer-generated variable-block randomization scheme was used to determine each subject's group assignment. Pain was recorded just before randomization and immediately after the procedure using the Oucher Scale (for subjects) and a 10-cm Visual Analog Scale (for parents and an observing orthopaedic technician). In a subset of individuals, follow-up telephone calls were made 24 hours postprocedure to inquire about any adverse event from the use of the topical liposomal lidocaine. Data were analyzed using the Student t test. RESULTS: Of a total of 296 recruited subjects, complete data were available on 281 subjects (140 intervention and 141 control). There were no significant differences between the 2 groups with regards to baseline characteristics, including preprocedure pain scores. Although postprocedure pain scores demonstrated an increase in pain in both groups (2.3 points in the treatment group and 2.0 points in the placebo group), no statistically significant difference was seen in postprocedure pain scores between groups (P=0.81). No adverse events were observed or reported. CONCLUSIONS: Topically applied liposomal lidocaine was not effective in reducing pain during this procedure, compared with a placebo. However, this study demonstrates that PP removal is a painful procedure in children. Given the large volume of patients who undergo this procedure and the long-term consequences of experiencing painful procedures in childhood, it is important to find safe and fast-acting methods to decrease procedural pain associated with PP removal.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.015
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.014
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Randomized trial · Consensus signal: Randomized trial
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.153
Threshold uncertainty score0.995

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0150.014
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.010
GPT teacher head0.267
Teacher spread0.256 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

Study designRandomized trial
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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

Citations11
Published2015
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Pediatric OrthopaedicsSame topicPediatric Pain Management TechniquesFrench-language works237,207