Evidence map›Paper›PMID 32709784›Full record

Trial reportIndian journal of ophthalmology2020

Eyelid retraction discomfort with cotton-tipped applicator, unimanual and speculum intravitreal injection techniques: Eyelid retraction technique randomized comparison trial (Eyelid RETRACT).

Joseph J Raevis, Matthew D Karl, Anthony M Parendo, Konstantin Astafurov, Andrew G Dugue, Steven A Agemy, Allison E Rizzuti, Joseph Tseng, Wayne Scott, Katelin Reaney-Perrotti and 2 more

Open access · diamondAbstract readRandomized Controlled Trial
In one paragraph

Trial report in Indian journal of ophthalmology, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
6citing papers in PubMed
0.8field-weighted citation impact, top 28% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

6 citing papers in PubMed, 11 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Review
  3. Preventive factors, diagnosis, and management of injection-related endophthalmitis: a literature review.Graefe's archive for clinical and experimental ophthalmology = Albrecht von Graefes Archiv fur klinische und experimentelle Ophthalmologie · 2022
    Review
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

12 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

Joseph J RaevisSUNY Downstate Medical Center, Brooklyn, New York, USA.
Matthew D KarlSUNY Downstate Medical Center, Brooklyn, New York, USA.
Anthony M ParendoSUNY Downstate Medical Center, Brooklyn, New York, USA.
Konstantin AstafurovSUNY Downstate Medical Center, Brooklyn, New York, USA.
Andrew G DugueSUNY Downstate Medical Center, Brooklyn, New York, USA.
Steven A AgemySUNY Downstate Medical Center, Brooklyn, New York, USA.
Allison E RizzutiSUNY Downstate Medical Center, Brooklyn, New York, USA.
Joseph TsengSUNY Downstate Medical Center, Brooklyn, New York, USA.
Wayne ScottSUNY Downstate Medical Center, Brooklyn, New York, USA.
Katelin Reaney-PerrottiSUNY Downstate Medical Center, Brooklyn, New York, USA.
John LaudiSUNY Downstate Medical Center, Brooklyn, New York, USA.
Eric M ShrierSUNY Downstate Medical Center, Brooklyn, New York, USA.
SUNY Downstate Health Sciences University · US

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Purpose: The aim of this study was to test the discomfort experienced during intravitreal injections with eyelid retraction between an eyelid speculum, cotton-tipped applicator (CTA), and unimanual eyelid retraction techniques. Methods: In total, 99 patients receiving intravitreal bevacizumab were enrolled into this prospective study. Participants were randomized to one of the three methods, given subconjunctival 2% lidocaine and then injected in the superior temporal quadrant. Immediately after the procedure, each patient was given a visual analog scale (VAS) to rate their discomfort. Results: The mean pain scores for eyelid retraction with unimanual, CTA, and speculum groups were 0.788 (standard deviation [SD] 0.70, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.448-1.128), 0.945 (SD 1.28, 95% CI 0.600-1.291), and 1.561 (SD 1.28, 95% CI 1.210-1.912), respectively. A one-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) test revealed a significant difference between the groups (P = 0.006). Post hoc analysis also revealed a difference in mean pain scores between the speculum and both the CTA and the unimanual methods. Conclusion: Our study shows that the unimanual and CTA methods for eyelid retraction are significantly less painful for patients compared to the speculum method. Patient comfort is of the utmost importance as intravitreal injections are performed millions of times a year with most patients requiring multiple injections.

Indexed as

EyelidsLidocaineHumansIntravitreal InjectionsProspective StudiesSurgical InstrumentsLidocaineCotton-tipped applicatoreyelid retractioneyelid speculumintravitreal injectionunimanualvisual analog scale

Identifiers

PMID32709784
PMCPMC7640871
OpenAlexW3043850927

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-SA
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.