ArticleArchives of dermatological research2024
Investigating visual preferences of clinical mechanical anesthetic vibration: a cross-sectional image survey.
Article in Archives of dermatological research, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
While mechanical vibration lessens discomfort associated with injection site pain (ISP), many local anesthetic injectors (LAIs) do not use vibratory anesthetic devices (VADs). Injector preference of vibration device is influenced by functional concerns, but qualitatively there is an element of adoption that is driven by visual feedback. We sought to capture operator preferences of vibration device design elements to further understand why injectors do not use these devices. We conducted a survey of image preferences among nurses and medical assistants employed at 8 dermatological clinics to investigate barriers to VAD use. Images were electronically modified with features distinct from the original device (a VAD commonly used in clinical practice). Participants rated their likelihood and comfort of use of each VAD represented in the images. Two-sample t-tests were used to compare the rating of the unmodified VAD to each modified VAD within participants. A response rate of 100% was achieved with 35 participants (average age, 38.5 years; 6 (17.1%) male, 29 (82.9%) female). Despite 28 (80%) participants knowing that mechanical vibration reduces ISP, only 16 (45.7%) endorsed ever using mechanical vibration as topical anesthetic. Images modified by pattern, color, and sterility covering were rated significantly lower than the original, unmodified VAD image (plain white VAD), confirming that visual feedback does impact adoption. Through independent comment categorization, aesthetics were found to be important to LAIs. Aesthetic preferences opposing functional concerns may factor into the lack of VAD use. Defining these visual preference barriers to adoption may help promote VAD use during dermatologic procedures.
Indexed as
Identifiers
38847915What 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.