Evidence map›Paper›PMID 18503905›Full record

Trial reportJournal of vascular and interventional radiology : JVIR2008

Beneficial effects of hypnosis and adverse effects of empathic attention during percutaneous tumor treatment: when being nice does not suffice.

Elvira V Lang, Kevin S Berbaum, Stephen G Pauker, Salomao Faintuch, Gloria M Salazar, Susan Lutgendorf, Eleanor Laser, Henrietta Logan, David Spiegel

2 registry-linked trialsAbstract readRandomized Controlled Trial
In one paragraph

Trial report in Journal of vascular and interventional radiology : JVIR, 2008. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to 2 registered trials, which are not on this map. Cited by 30 papers, 4 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
30citing papers in PubMed, 4 pooled it
2.1field-weighted citation impact, top 14% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

NCT02347748 nacompletednot on this mapstarted 2015, after this paper: background citation

The Impact of Comfort Talk on Anxiety Levels and Procedural Experience in a Pediatric Population Undergoing Cardiac Catheterization: A Prospective Randomized Controlled Trial

TypeinterventionalSponsorThe Hospital for Sick ChildrenRan2015 to 2018Enrolled160ConditionsAnxiety, Pain, Adaptation, Psychological, Stress, PsychologicalArmsReading pre-procedure script, Reading pre-extubation script, Reading 2 scripts
NCT05194449 nawithdrawnnot on this mapstarted 2022, after this paper: background citation

Nonpharmacologic Reduction of Periprocedural Pain, Anxiety, and Prescription Drug Use Phase II

TypeinterventionalSponsorHypnalgesics, LLCRan2022 to 2024Enrolled0ConditionsDental Anxiety, Dental Pain, Root WorkArmsComfort Talk® App, Placebo App
3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

30 citing papers in PubMed, 4 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 108 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. The Efficacy, Safety and Applications of Medical Hypnosis.Deutsches Arzteblatt international · 2016
    Pooled it
  4. Meta-analysis of psychosocial interventions to reduce pain in patients with cancer.Journal of clinical oncology : official journal of the American Society of Clinical Oncology · 2012
    Pooled it
  5. Trial
  6. Effects of Patients' Affect on Adverse Procedural Events during Image-Guided Interventions.Journal of vascular and interventional radiology : JVIR · 2017
    Trial
  7. Trial
  8. Trial
  9. Trial
  10. Article
  11. Review
  12. Review
  13. Review
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Canadian oncology nursing journal = Revue canadienne de nursing oncologique · 2022
    Article
  17. Article
  18. Observational
  19. Observational
  20. Comfort Talk®: From the Waiting Room to the Treatment Suite.Deutsche Zeitschrift fur zahnarztliche Hypnose · 2019
    Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

9 authors at 5 institutions in 1 country.

Elvira V LangDepartment of Radiology, Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center/Harvard Medical School, Boston, Massachusetts 02215, USA. elang@bidmc.harvard.edu
Kevin S Berbaum
Stephen G Pauker
Salomao Faintuch
Gloria M Salazar
Susan Lutgendorf
Eleanor Laser
Henrietta Logan
David Spiegel
Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center · USUniversity of Iowa · USStanford University · USTufts Medical Center · USUniversity of Florida · US

Funding

NONPHARMACOLOGIC ANALGESIA FOR INVASIVE PROCEDURESR01AT000002 · NCCIH · BETH ISRAEL DEACONESS MEDICAL CENTER · PI LANG, ELVIRA VALENTINA · 1999 to 2005
$1.7M
Midcareer Development in Nonpharmacologic AnalgesiaK24AT001074 · NCCIH · BETH ISRAEL DEACONESS MEDICAL CENTER · PI LANG, ELVIRA VALENTINA · 2002 to 2006
$657k
NCCIH NIH HHS 1K24-AT-01074NCCIH NIH HHS K24 AT001074NCCIH NIH HHS R01 AT000002NCCIH NIH HHS R01-AT-0002-07
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

purposeTo determine how hypnosis and empathic attention during percutaneous tumor treatments affect pain, anxiety, drug use, and adverse events. MATERIALS AND

methodsFor their tumor embolization or radiofrequency ablation, 201 patients were randomized to receive standard care, empathic attention with defined behaviors displayed by an additional provider, or self-hypnotic relaxation including the defined empathic attention behaviors. All had local anesthesia and access to intravenous medication. Main outcome measures were pain and anxiety assessed every 15 minutes by patient self-report, medication use (with 50 mug fentanyl or 1 mg midazolam counted as one unit), and adverse events, defined as occurrences requiring extra medical attention, including systolic blood pressure fluctuations (> or =50 mm Hg change to >180 mm Hg or <105 mm Hg), vasovagal episodes, cardiac events, and respiratory impairment.

resultsPatients treated with hypnosis experienced significantly less pain and anxiety than those in the standard care and empathy groups at several time intervals and received significantly fewer median drug units (mean, 2.0; interquartile range [IQR], 1-4) than patients in the standard (mean, 3.0; IQR, 1.5-5.0; P = .0147) and empathy groups (mean, 3.50; IQR, 2.0-5.9; P = .0026). Thirty-one of 65 patients (48%) in the empathy group had adverse events, which was significantly more than in the hypnosis group (eight of 66; 12%; P = .0001) and standard care group (18 of 70; 26%; P = .0118).

conclusionsProcedural hypnosis including empathic attention reduces pain, anxiety, and medication use. Conversely, empathic approaches without hypnosis that provide an external focus of attention and do not enhance patients' self-coping can result in more adverse events. These findings should have major implications in the education of procedural personnel.

Indexed as

Catheter AblationEmbolization, TherapeuticEmpathyHypnosisAdaptation, PsychologicalAdultAgedAged, 80 and overAnxietyFemaleHumansLeiomyomaMaleMiddle AgedNeoplasmsPain

Identifiers

PMID18503905
PMCPMC2967354
OpenAlexW2132010412

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.