ArticleFrontiers in veterinary science2026
The efficacy of a novel CO
Article in Frontiers in veterinary science, 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
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Introduction: Effective pain management is essential in veterinary needle-related procedures. Traditional methods, including infiltrative, cream, and spray formulations, have limitations such as delayed onset, inconsistent temperature control, and skin damage. This study evaluated the efficacy of a novel vapocoolant spray (VetEase Methods: Ninety cases of dogs received cryoanesthesia immediately before undergoing three types of needle-related procedures: centesis (including cystocentesis, thoracentesis, and abdominocentesis), fine-needle aspiration (FNA), and jugular venipuncture. Each procedure was divided into three groups based on cryoanesthesia spray conditions: control (no spray), group A (2 s at 2°C), and group B (5 s at 2°C). Modified pain scores and visual analog scale evaluations were recorded immediately after needle insertion to assess the reduction in pain. Pain evaluation criteria included vocalization, general movements, and other observable responses. Results: Significant pain reduction was observed in the centesis procedure for the group treated with cryoanesthesia at 2°C for 5 s (Group B), with a mean modified pain score of 0.8 compared to 3.7 in the control group ( Conclusion: The novel cryoanesthetic device significantly alleviated needle-related pain during centesis procedures in dogs. It provided rapid local anesthesia, eliminating the need for prolonged onset times and minimizing skin complications, thereby presenting a viable alternative to topical anesthetics.
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.