Trial reportJournal of vascular and interventional radiology : JVIR2017
Effects of Patients' Affect on Adverse Procedural Events during Image-Guided Interventions.
Trial report in Journal of vascular and interventional radiology : JVIR, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. 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.
- Measuring inter-individual differences in stress sensitivity during MR-guided prostate biopsy.Scientific reports · 2021Trial
- Comfort Talk®: From the Waiting Room to the Treatment Suite.Deutsche Zeitschrift fur zahnarztliche Hypnose · 2019Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
Abstract
purposeTo assess how a patient's affect on presentation relates to the likelihood of adverse events during their subsequent interventional image-guided procedures. MATERIALS AND
methodsA secondary analysis was performed of an existing dataset from a clinical trial with 230 patients who underwent percutaneous peripheral vascular and renal interventions and who had completed the positive affect (PA) negative affect (NA) schedule (PANAS) before their procedures. Summary PANAS scores were split over the median and used to classify the participants into those with high vs low PA and high vs low NA. Associations between affect and the absence or presence of adverse medical events were examined by two-sided Fisher exact tests.
resultsPatients with high baseline NA were significantly more likely to have adverse events during their procedures than those with low baseline NA (18% vs 8%; P = .030). High baseline PA was not associated with a significantly higher frequency of subsequent adverse events compared with low PA (15% vs 9%; P = .23). Patients with high NA requested and received significantly more sedative and opioid agents than those with low NA (2.0 vs 1.0 units requested [P = .0009]; 3.0 vs 1.0 units received [P = .0004]). PA levels did not affect medication use.
conclusionsHigh NA, but not PA, was associated with an increased likelihood of adverse events. Improving patients' NA before procedures seems a more suitable target than attempting to boost PA to improve the procedural experience.
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.