Periurethral Lidocaine Does Not Decrease Pain After Urodynamic Testing in Women: A Double-Blinded Randomized Control Trial
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: Urodynamic testing of women is a common procedure to evaluate lower urinary tract symptoms but may cause discomfort. The objective of our study was to determine the effect of externally applied periurethral 2% lidocaine gel on pain scores after complex urodynamic testing in women. METHODS: This prospective, double-blinded, placebo-controlled randomized trial compared 2% lidocaine gel to water-based lubricant applied to the periurethral area before urodynamic testing in women. Discomfort was measured using a visual analog pain scale (VAS) ranging from 0 to 100. The primary outcome was the difference in VAS from baseline to 4 to 6 hours after urodynamic testing. Secondary outcomes included: VAS difference from baseline to immediately postprocedure and 24 hours after urodynamic testing; VAS scores: at baseline, immediately postprocedure, after 4-6 hours, and after 24 hours; urodynamic testing results; and any adverse events. Sixty-four women per group were needed to provide a power of 80% to detect a 10-mm difference on a 100-point VAS. RESULTS: From January 2018 to March 2019, 134 subjects were randomized, 6 subjects were excluded, which resulted in 64 subjects in both the water-based lubricant group and 2% lidocaine gel group. There was no difference in baseline demographics. There was no significant difference in the change in VAS from baseline to 4 to 6 hours after UDT (0, 0 P = 0.88). No difference in secondary outcomes was noted. CONCLUSIONS: Topically applied 2% lidocaine gel does not decrease pain compared with water-based lubricant. For most women, complex urodynamic testing is not associated with any significant pain.Clinical Trial Registration:www.ClinicalTrials.gov,-NCT03390790, "Lidocaine for Pain After Urodynamic Testing".
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 | 0.005 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.005 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.008 | 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".