Trial reportUrolithiasis2014
Dermal scarification versus intramuscular diclofenac sodium injection for the treatment of renal colic: a prospective randomized clinical trial.
Trial report in Urolithiasis, 2014. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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.
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.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
1 citing paper in PubMed, 3 citations in OpenAlex.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
10 authors at 2 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The aim of the study is to determine whether dermal scarification is equally effective for treating acute renal colic compared to diclofenac sodium intramuscular therapy. A prospective, randomized controlled study was conducted with methodologic rigor based on CONSORT criteria. A total of 291 patients, aged ≥ 18 years, suffering from acute renal colic were included in this trial and randomly assigned in two groups. Patients in the first group (A) received endodermal injection (dermal scarification) of 1 ml normal saline at the area of intensity of pain. The second group (B) received 75 mg diclofenac sodium by intramuscular injection. The success of each method defined the primary end point. Pain intensity before and after treatment was assessed using a visual analog scale. The time onset and the duration of analgesia were also recorded. There was no significant difference between the two groups regarding hematuria (p = 0.158), stone identification at KUB (p = 0.751) and mean pain intensity (p = 0.609) before treatment initiation. The method was successful in 75.5 % of patients in group A and 74.3 % of patients in group B (p = 0.812). Mean pain reduction was comparable, 5.65 ± 3.05 in group A and 5.34 ± 2.99 in group B (p = 0.379), with dermal scarification eliciting its effect considerably faster, whereas the duration of analgesia was longer in the diclofenac group (p < 0.05). In conclusion, dermal scarification could constitute an alternative method for treating renal colic as it is equally effective compared to the standard treatment of diclofenac sodium.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
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.