Efficacy and Safety of Anxiolytics in Mohs Micrographic Surgery: A Randomized, Double-Blinded, Placebo-Controlled Trial
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Patient anxiety can complicate surgical outcomes by elevating blood pressure, increasing the need for postoperative pain management, and reducing overall patient satisfaction. Despite the use of anxiolytic medications in outpatient procedures, there is limited comparative evidence on the efficacy and safety of these agents in Mohs micrographic surgery. OBJECTIVE: To compare the effectiveness and safety of different preprocedural anxiolytic agents in Mohs surgery on perioperative patient anxiety and patient satisfaction. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A double-blinded, randomized, placebo-controlled trial was conducted of 6 different preprocedural anxiolytic agents (lorazepam, diazepam, alprazolam, gabapentin, pregabalin, and melatonin) in 350 patients undergoing Mohs surgery. Anxiety and vital signs were recorded. RESULTS: Diazepam demonstrated a statistically significant, sustained reduction in anxiety levels compared with placebo ( p = .03). Gabapentin significantly reduced early anxiety ( p = .02). Alprazolam showed a trend to early anxiety reduction ( p = .08). Lorazepam ( p = .73), pregabalin ( p = .53), and melatonin ( p = .24) failed to reduce patient anxiety compared with placebo at any time point. No anxiolytic significantly impacted any patient vital sign or cognition. CONCLUSION: Although short-acting benzodiazepines and gamma-aminobutyric acid medications may have transient anxiolytic effects, a single oral dose of 5 mg of diazepam can provide a sustained anxiolytic effect in Mohs surgery, with excellent patient safety.
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 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 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 | 0.000 |
| 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".