Trial reportHNO2016
[Medical and psychological aspects of the treatment of connatal dacryostenosis : Parental evaluation of their own and their child's stress].
Trial report in HNO, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. An erratum has been issued. Cited by 2 papers.
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
2 citing papers in PubMed, 6 citations in OpenAlex.
- [Congenital nasolacrimal duct obstruction : A real-life study from the first symptoms to the results of surgical treatment].Der Ophthalmologe : Zeitschrift der Deutschen Ophthalmologischen Gesellschaft · 2021Article
- [Minimally invasive diagnostics and therapy of congenital nasolacrimal duct obstruction].Der Ophthalmologe : Zeitschrift der Deutschen Ophthalmologischen Gesellschaft · 2017Review
Corrections and comments
- Erratum issued
Authors and funding
5 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundLacrimal probing and syringing for connatal dacryostenosis can be performed under local (LA) and general anesthesia (GA). In cases of invasive medical procedures, pain and anxiety can be distressing for children and their parents. MATERIALS AND
methodsUsing questionnaires (n = 65), parents were asked to evaluate their own stress and that of their child during lacrimal probing and syringing. Analyzing different subgroups, the impact of the kind of anesthesia (LA vs. GA), trust in medical treatment, therapeutic success, prior experiences with GA, parental educational level, age of parents and children, number of children, and time between the intervention and the interview on the stress was examined. Stress level was evaluated on a scale from 1 (no stress) to 10 (maximal stress).
resultsMean children's age was 8.5 ± 7.42 months. Mean age of the parents was 30.8 ± 6.17 years. Treating children under LA, parents reported moderate to severe stress levels for themselves (mean, M = 7.15) and for their children (M = 7.82). Children's stress levels were significantly higher when the treatment was performed under LA (n = 47; M = 7.34) in comparison to GA (n = 18; M = 6.06; p < 0.05). Parents having two or more children reported significantly lower stress levels than those with only one child. Furthermore, prior experiences with GA led to significantly higher parental stress levels when their children were treated under GA. Other factors did not show any impact on parent's and children's stress levels.
conclusionsParents might have been influenced by hearing the children's reaction (e. g., crying) during the intervention under LA. Nevertheless, parents had a higher acceptance of this type of intervention (LA) in comparison to GA. This effect was even stronger among parents with prior experience of GA.
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.