ArticlePlastic and reconstructive surgery. Global open2025
Efficacy of an Electronic Constant-Speed Injector in Reducing Pain of Local Anesthesia in a Scalp Procedure.
Article in Plastic and reconstructive surgery. Global open, 2025. 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
Background: Local anesthesia-related pain is associated with injection speed. An electronic constant-speed injector was developed to deliver slow and steady injections, aiming to alleviate pain during dermatologic anesthesia. We aimed to validate the efficacy of an electronic constant-speed injector in reducing pain during local anesthetic infiltration by comparing it with the conventional manual injection method. Methods: Patients undergoing local anesthetic infiltration in an area greater than 5 cm Results: A total of 128 patients were enrolled, with a mean age of 45.96 ± 12.19 years. The procedures included scalp micropigmentation and hair transplantation, with most injections located on the frontal scalp. The manual injection had a mean NRS score of 4.30 ± 1.46, whereas the electronic injectors had a score of 2.63 ± 1.04. The mean difference in NRS scores between the 2 methods was 1.68 ± 1.00, indicating significantly lower pain scores with the electronic injector. Conclusions: The electronic constant-speed injector effectively reduced pain associated with local anesthetic infiltration compared with the manual injection method.
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.