Trial reportScientific reports2026
A randomized controlled study on the clinical application of 'Flying Needle' painless phlebotomy technology.
Trial report in Scientific reports, 2026. 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
9 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Venipuncture-related pain and needle fear can reduce patient cooperation and worsen the phlebotomy experience. This study was a comparative study conducted on 600 outpatients of Xiamen Humanity Hospital from September to December 2022, aiming to explore the application effect of the 'Flying Needle' painless phlebotomy technology (a method of accurately, quickly, and painlessly inserting a needle into a vein for blood collection). The study adopted a random grouping method, dividing the 600 included patients into an experimental group and a control group to ensure the comparability of baseline data between the two groups. The two groups of patients adopted different phlebotomy. The experimental group used the 'Flying Needle' phlebotomy method, while the control group used the normal phlebotomy method. During the study, multiple indicators of the two groups were observed and compared, including pain score during phlebotomy, fear score before and after phlebotomy, occurrence of adverse events during phlebotomy, patients' satisfaction with phlebotomy services, hemolysis of blood samples, and success rate of phlebotomy. Baseline data comparison showed that there were no statistically significant differences in gender, age, and body mass index (BMI) between the experimental group and the control group (p > 0.05), indicating good comparability between the groups. The comparison results of core indicators were as follows: in terms of pain score, the experimental group (1.96 ± 1.42) was significantly lower than the control group (2.87 ± 1.42), with a statistically significant difference (p < 0.001); in terms of the adverse event scores (with higher scores indicating more severe events), the experimental group (0.25 ± 0.59) was significantly lower than the control group (0.52 ± 0.87), with a statistically significant difference (p < 0.001); in terms of fear score, the post-phlebotomy fear score of the experimental group (1.49 ± 0.90) was not only significantly lower than that of the control group (1.67 ± 0.85) (p = 0.025), but also significantly lower than the pre-phlebotomy fear score of the experimental group itself (1.75 ± 0.91) (p < 0.001); in terms of patient satisfaction, the experimental group (97.00%) was significantly higher than the control group (83.00%), with a statistically significant difference (p < 0.001). In addition, there were no significant differences in blood sample hemolysis and phlebotomy success rate between the two groups. The 'Flying Needle' technique has rapid insertion, a short process, minimal damage, reduces pain, adverse reactions, and fear, and improves satisfaction. It has good potential and is worthy of promotion.
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.