Topical anesthetics for needle-related pain in adults and children (TOPIC): a mini-review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Purpose: Healthcare professionals (HCP) perform various needle procedures that can be distressing and painful for children and adults. Even though many strategies have been proven effective in reducing distress and pain, topical anesthetic use before needle procedures is uncommon. However, there are limited studies in the existing literature comparing specifically liposomal lidocaine and tetracaine hydrochloride topical creams. Source: This systematic review analyzed studies on the use of two anesthetic creams, Liposomal Lidocaine (Maxilene®) and Tetracaine hydrochloride (Ametop™), in children and adults undergoing a needle-related procedure. Databases searched: PubMed, CINAHL, ClinicalTrials. Only randomized controlled trials (RCT) and Controlled Clinical Trials (CCT) studies were included. Cochrane Collaboration's Risk of Bias assessment tool was used. Strictly minimally invasive procedures were included to standardize different skin needle interventions. Principal findings: Only one study with 60 participants was available to be included in this review. No statistically significant difference was found in the mean pain score among both interventions. The outcomes of self-reported distress during cannulation and on HCP satisfaction were not reported. However, physiological characteristics associated with stress/anxiety and on cannulation success rate were reported and did not show statistical significance. Conclusion: Little to no evidence regarding the most efficient cream between liposomal lidocaine and tetracaine hydrochloride for pain management during needle-related procedures was found. Further studies, particularly RCT with larger sample sizes and standardized outcome measures, are needed to confirm the relative efficacy of either anesthetic cream.
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 | 0.014 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".