Trial reportJournal of anesthesia2017
Preventive effect of a vapocoolant spray on propofol-induced pain: a prospective, double-blind, randomized study.
Trial report in Journal of anesthesia, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed, 9 citations in OpenAlex.
- Cooling spray or lidocaine spray and needle insertion pain in hemodialysis patients: an open-label cross-over randomized clinical trial.BMC anesthesiology · 2023Trial
- Effect of ciprofol compared with propofol on hemodynamics in bronchoscope procedures during anesthetic induction: a randomized double-blind controlled study.Frontiers in medicine · 2025Article
- Efficacy and safety of ciprofol for sedation in outpatient gynecological procedures: a phase III multicenter randomized trial.Frontiers in medicine · 2024Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors at 3 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposePropofol causes injection pain. Although lidocaine pre-treatment via venous occlusion is known to be the most effective way, it still has some inconvenience. We implemented this study to compare the effect of a vapocoolant spray with lidocaine pre-treatment.
methodsParticipants (n = 90) were randomized to one of three groups. Group V: after placebo injection and tourniquet, the vapocoolant spray was applied; group L: after lidocaine injection and tourniquet, the placebo spray was applied; group C: after placebo injection and tourniquet, the placebo spray was applied. The intensity of propofol-induced pain, the incidence of metallic taste, and the satisfaction were assessed.
resultsPropofol-induced pain was significantly lower in groups V and L than in group C [0.5 (0-2.25), 0.5 (0-1), and 5 (1-7), median (interquartile range), respectively, p < 0.001]. There was no significant difference in pain intensity between groups V and L. Group L showed a significantly higher incidence of metallic taste than groups V and C (23, 0, and 0%, respectively; p = 0.001). Groups V and L showed higher satisfaction scores than group C [5 (4-5), 4 (3.75-5), and 2 (2-3), respectively; p < 0.001], and there was a significant difference between groups V and L (p = 0.012).
conclusionVapocoolant spray showed a similar effect to lidocaine in analgesia and lowered the incidence of a metallic taste. These resulted in greater satisfaction with the vapocoolant spray compared with lidocaine. Vapocoolant spray is an effective and convenient way to prevent propofol-induced pain.
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.