A prospective randomized trial comparing lidocaine and lubricating gel on pain level in patients undergoing transrectal ultrasound prostate biopsy.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: To compare patient reported pain during TRUS guided biopsies using intrarectal lidocaine gel versus lubricating gel. MATERIALS AND METHODS: From May 2000 to May 2001, 360 men undergoing transrectal prostate biopsy were enrolled in this study. Patients were randomized into two groups. In group 1, 180 patients received 10 cc of 2% intrarectal lidocaine gel (Xylocaine 2% jelly, Astra Pharma Inc.) 5 to 10 minutes before the procedure and in group 2, 180 patients received 10 cc of lubricating gel. No other sedation or analgesia was given. Pain level immediately after the last biopsy was assessed using a 10-point linear visual analog pain scale. RESULTS: The median pain score during transrectal prostate biopsy was 2 (range 0 to 8) and 3 (range 1 to 10) in groups 1 and 2, respectively (p = 0.0001). Only minor complications occurred and complication rates were not significantly different between the groups. CONCLUSION: Rectal administration of lidocaine gel is safe, simple and effective for reducing the pain level associated with transrectal prostate biopsy.
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 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 0.001 |
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".