The Effect of Eutectic Mixture of Local Anesthesia Cream (EMLA) on Satisfaction, Pain, and Nausea/Vomiting of Patients Undergoing Gastro-intestinal Endoscopy-A Randomized Clinical Trial Comparing EMLA Cream and Gel, Lidocaine Gel and Spray, and Placebo
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND & OBJECTIVES: Esophagogastroduodenoscopy is a valuable diagnostic method for the treatment of various diseases that has found a wonderful application in recent years. Yet, controlling patients’ pain and nausea is a fundamental factor to increase patient satisfaction, reduce patients’ discomfort, and increase the patient’s cooperation. Therefore, this study aimed to assess the efficacy of Eutectic Mixture of Local Anesthesia (EMLA) cream and gel, as a topical pharyngeal anesthetic on patients’ pharyngeal pain, nausea/vomiting, and satisfaction, in comparison with lidocaine gel and spray and placebo.METHODS: This double-blind randomized clinical trial was conducted to assess patient satisfaction, nausea/vomiting, throat and pharyngeal pain during and after endoscopy by different methods of local anesthesia. Thus, 150 patients were randomly divided into 5 groups of 30 receiving placebo, lidocaine gel, lidocaine spray, EMLA gel and cream 5 to 10 minutes before endoscopy. Then patient satisfaction (measured by GHAA-9 questionnaire), pain or discomfort in the throat, and nausea/vomiting were evaluated half an hour after endoscopy.RESULTS: Patient satisfaction score was not statistically different between the test groups (P>0.05), but the throat pain and discomfort and nausea/vomiting during and after endoscopy was statistically different between groups (P<0.05) and the lowest nausea/vomiting was in the group using EMLA cream.CONCLUSION: Different methods of throat anesthesia had no significant difference on patient satisfaction but EMLA cream and gel caused less nausea/vomiting than lidocaine gel or spray during and after endoscopy.
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 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 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) | 0.005 | 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".