ArticleJAMA facial plastic surgery2019
Effect of a Vibratory Anesthetic Device on Pain Anticipation and Subsequent Pain Perception Among Patients Undergoing Cutaneous Cancer Removal Surgery: A Randomized Clinical Trial.
Article in JAMA facial plastic surgery, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to 3 registered trials, which are not on this map. Cited by 5 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.
Determining the Variable Factors in Cutaneous Perception of Vibratory Stimulation
Distraction Techniques in Periocular Anesthesia: Tapping vs Vibration
Improving Patient Comfort of Vibratory Anesthetic Devices With a Cotton Dampener
Who cites it
5 citing papers in PubMed, 9 citations in OpenAlex.
- Efficacy of vibration anesthesia in facial injections: a systematic review and meta-analysis.Archives of dermatological research · 2024Article
- Vibration Anesthesia During Invasive Procedures: A Meta-analysis.The Journal of clinical and aesthetic dermatology · 2024Review
- Investigating visual preferences of clinical mechanical anesthetic vibration: a cross-sectional image survey.Archives of dermatological research · 2024Article
- A pilot study comparing the user preference of different forms of mechanical vibration.Archives of dermatological research · 2024Article
- How to minimize pain with local anesthesia and improve patient experiences: a review.Anais brasileiros de dermatologiaReview
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 at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
importanceVibration has been shown to decrease injection site pain in patients; however, to date, this effect has not been assessed for patients who catastrophize pain (ie, patients who anticipate a higher pain level). The anticipation of a pain score greater than 4 on the 11-point Numeric Rating Scale (NRS) has been associated with an increase in a patient's perception of procedural pain.
objectiveTo assess the efficacy of vibration during cutaneous anesthetic injection for dermatologic surgery for patients who catastrophize pain (NRS score >4) and patients who do not (NRS score ≤4). DESIGN, SETTING, AND
participantsRandomized, parallel-group clinical trial from June 19 to September 4, 2018, at a tertiary dermatologic surgery clinic among 87 adults undergoing cutaneous cancer removal surgery. Patients completed a preprocedural questionnaire detailing their baseline pain, anticipated pain, and drug use. Analysis was performed on an intent-to-treat basis.
interventionsUse of a vibratory anesthetic device (VAD) on the treatment site prior to anesthetic injection in the on (VAD ON) or off (VAD OFF) mode. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES: Pain was reported using the 11-point NRS (where 0 indicates no pain and 11 indicates the worst pain imaginable). A minimum clinically important difference of 22% or more and a substantial clinically important difference of 57% or more were used to assess the efficacy of vibration in patient-reported NRS score during anesthetic injection (iNRS score).
resultsA total of 87 patients were included, with 101 unique events reported (among the unique events, 37 were reported in women and 64 were reported in men; mean [SD] age, 66.0 [11.3] years). The mean (confidence level [CL]) iNRS score for patients who catastrophized pain was 2.27 (0.66) compared with 1.44 (0.39) for patients who did not (P = .03). A 38.9% decrease in mean (CL) iNRS score was reported with VAD ON compared with VAD OFF in all participants (1.24 [0.38] vs 2.04 [0.54]). Patients who catastrophized pain reported a 25.5% decrease in mean (CL) iNRS score with VAD ON vs VAD OFF (1.91 [0.99] vs 2.57 [0.98]), and patients who did not reported a 79.4% decrease (1.02 [0.40] vs 1.84 [0.66]). VAD ON was the only statistically significant variable to affect iNRS score (F statistic, 2.741; P = .03). CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE: This trial demonstrates that those who catastrophize pain prior to a procedure report a higher perceived level of pain. The application of vibration during local anesthetic injection resulted in a minimum clinically important difference in pain level for patients who catastrophize pain and a substantial clinically important difference in pain level for patients who do not. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: 2.
trial registrationClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT03467685.
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.