Trial reportBMC urology2025
Comparison of the efficacy of two non-pharmacological techniques in reducing pain during urinary catheterization: a randomized clinical trial.
Trial report in BMC urology, 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
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundUrinary catheterization (UC), a commonly performed procedure in emergency departments (EDs), is often associated with significant patient discomfort and pain. This study aimed to compare the effectiveness of two non-pharmacological techniques in reducing pain during UC.
methodsThis randomized clinical trial included 54 male participants aged 18–65 years who underwent UC in the ED of Imam Khomeini Hospital. After obtaining ethical approval and informed consent, eligible patients were randomly assigned to one of three groups: Intervention Group 1 (nasal pressure technique with closed epiglottis exhalation), Intervention Group 2 (deep cough technique), or the control group (routine UC procedure). Pain levels were assessed using the Visual Analog Scale (VAS) at three time points: immediately before, immediately after, and 15 min after the intervention. Data were analyzed using SPSS version 18.
resultsThe mean age of participants was 49.09 ± 19.61 years. Both Intervention Group 1 and Intervention Group 2 showed significant differences in pain levels compared to the control group immediately after the intervention (P = 0.046). Specifically, Intervention Group 1 experienced lower pain levels than the control group, while Intervention Group 2 reported higher pain levels. At 15 min post-intervention, pain levels in Intervention Group 1 were lower than in Intervention Group 2, and the control group reported lower pain levels than Intervention Group 2, though this difference was not statistically significant (P = 0.09).
conclusionThe nasal pressure technique demonstrated a significant reduction in pain during UC, suggesting its potential as a simple, non-pharmacological intervention for pain management. Further studies are recommended to validate these findings and explore their applicability in clinical practice.
trial registrationThis study was retrospectively registered in the Iranian Registry of Clinical Trials (IRCT) under the registration number IRCT20191217045764N3 on March 17, 2021.
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.