Analgesic Effect of a Single Drop of Nepafenac 0.3% on Pain Associated with Intravitreal Injections: A Randomized Clinical Trial
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: To evaluate the analgesic effect of nepafenac 0.3% in patients undergoing intravitreal injections (IVI) of antivascular endothelial growth factors. METHODS: This is a single-center, prospective, randomized, blinded, triple-arm, placebo-controlled interventional study. Patients were randomized into 3 Groups. Group 1 (n = 33) received nepafenac 0.1%, Group 2 (n = 32) received nepafenac 0.3%, and Group 3 (n = 31) received placebo 40 min before IVI. Using the short form of the McGill Pain Questionnaire (SF-MPQ), pain intensity was assessed with the visual analog scale (VAS), the Main Component of the SF-MPQ, and the present pain intensity (PPI) scores immediately and 6 h postinjection. RESULTS: Immediately after IVI, the VAS pain score was statistically significantly lower in patients treated with nepafenac 0.1% and 0.3%, compared with placebo (P < 0.001 and P = 0.001, respectively). The PPI scores were statistically significantly lower when nepafenac 0.1% or 0.3% was instilled compared with placebo (P = 0.01 and P < 0.0001, respectively). The Main Component of the SF-MPQ scores were statistically significantly lower after nepafenac 0.1% and 0.3% administration compared with placebo (P = 0.001 and P < 0.001, respectively). Six hours post-IVI the nepafenac 0.3% demonstrated statistically significantly higher analgesic effect compared with nepafenac 0.1% and placebo as this was indicated by the VAS pain score (P = 0.013 and P < 0.00001, respectively) and by the PPI score (P = 0.01 and P < 0.00001, respectively). CONCLUSIONS: A single instillation of nepafenac 0.1% or 0.3% before IVI could effectively alleviate the IVI-related pain. The 0.3% formula exerts its analgesic effect more intensively at 6 h after the IVI.
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 | 0.003 | 0.000 |
| 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".