Effect of addition of distraction to cryotherapy on arteriovenous cannulation‐associated pain: A randomized controlled trial
Bibliographic record
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: Pain associated with the arteriovenous fistula needle is considered one of the major challenges faced by nurses and patients. This study evaluates the effectiveness of using two different approaches in combination to alleviate pain associated with arteriovenous fistula needle cannulation, and patients' satisfaction level with this method. METHODS: A randomized clinical trial was conducted on hemodialysis patients who were allocated to one to two groups: intervention (distraction plus cryotherapy) (n = 25) or control group (receiving cryotherapy alone) (n = 25). The pain level was assessed before and at the end of applying cryotherapy and distraction techniques. Patients' satisfaction level was assessed at the end of the trial. FINDINGS: After the application of cryotherapy and distraction techniques for the intervention group, the mean value of pain level was 2.12 (0.9) compared with 3.92 (0.16) for the control group. Independent t tests showed a significant difference between groups regarding the pain level with p value less than 0.05. The mean satisfaction level for the participants receiving only cryotherapy was 4.6 out of 10, compared with 5.9 for the patients who received cryotherapy and distraction techniques. DISCUSSION: The findings revealed that using two different approaches in combination to control pain associated with AV fistula cannulation was more effective than using a single strategy. The technique can be used in clinical settings to reduce pain and improve patients' satisfaction level.
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 | 0.004 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.005 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| 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".