过敏注射(皮下免疫疗法)期间减轻疼痛策略的评估:随机对照试验研究。

IF 2.6 Q2 ALLERGY
J Pfieffer, K Wehmeier, K Gee, T DeSanto, E Yousef
{"title":"过敏注射(皮下免疫疗法)期间减轻疼痛策略的评估:随机对照试验研究。","authors":"J Pfieffer, K Wehmeier, K Gee, T DeSanto, E Yousef","doi":"10.23822/EurAnnACI.1764-1489.312","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Summary: </strong><b>Background.</b> Subcutaneous immunotherapy (SCIT) is a potential disease-modifying therapy effective for treatment of various allergic disorders. Pain and fear are common concerns of children, which can pose stress and result in negative experiences. The purpose of this study was to evaluate and compare the effectiveness of three marketed distraction devices and ethyl chloride spray (a routinely used topical anesthetic agent for painful procedures), the current clinical standard of care in reducing the perception of needle pain during SCIT administration in children. <b>Methods.</b> 40 children, aged 4-17 years, receiving SCIT with use of one of three alternative pain therapies or with standard practice were enrolled. Participants were randomly assigned to one of the pain-modifying interventions. The three interventional groups were ShotBlocker<sup>®</sup> (Bionix, Toledo, OH, USA), Buzzy<sup>®</sup> I (Pain Care Labs, Atlanta, GA, USA) (vibration only), and Buzzy<sup>®</sup> II (vibration with ice). Control group was ethyl chloride spray. The study consisted of two visits during SCIT administration process. <b>Results.</b> Of these 40 children, 12 received the ShotBlocker, 8 received the Buzzy I, 11 received the Buzzy II, and 9 received ethyl chloride spray (control group). <b>Conclusions.</b> There were no significant differences found between each of the distraction devices and between the control group. Type II error/false negative finding cannot be ruled out because of a small sample. Therefore, we cannot conclude that no true difference exists between each distraction device and the control group simply because of occurrence of a non-significant P-value in our study.</p>","PeriodicalId":11890,"journal":{"name":"European annals of allergy and clinical immunology","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":2.6000,"publicationDate":"2024-05-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Evaluation of pain-alleviating strategies during allergy shots (subcutaneous immunotherapy): a randomized controlled pilot study.\",\"authors\":\"J Pfieffer, K Wehmeier, K Gee, T DeSanto, E Yousef\",\"doi\":\"10.23822/EurAnnACI.1764-1489.312\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Summary: </strong><b>Background.</b> Subcutaneous immunotherapy (SCIT) is a potential disease-modifying therapy effective for treatment of various allergic disorders. Pain and fear are common concerns of children, which can pose stress and result in negative experiences. The purpose of this study was to evaluate and compare the effectiveness of three marketed distraction devices and ethyl chloride spray (a routinely used topical anesthetic agent for painful procedures), the current clinical standard of care in reducing the perception of needle pain during SCIT administration in children. <b>Methods.</b> 40 children, aged 4-17 years, receiving SCIT with use of one of three alternative pain therapies or with standard practice were enrolled. Participants were randomly assigned to one of the pain-modifying interventions. The three interventional groups were ShotBlocker<sup>®</sup> (Bionix, Toledo, OH, USA), Buzzy<sup>®</sup> I (Pain Care Labs, Atlanta, GA, USA) (vibration only), and Buzzy<sup>®</sup> II (vibration with ice). Control group was ethyl chloride spray. The study consisted of two visits during SCIT administration process. <b>Results.</b> Of these 40 children, 12 received the ShotBlocker, 8 received the Buzzy I, 11 received the Buzzy II, and 9 received ethyl chloride spray (control group). <b>Conclusions.</b> There were no significant differences found between each of the distraction devices and between the control group. Type II error/false negative finding cannot be ruled out because of a small sample. Therefore, we cannot conclude that no true difference exists between each distraction device and the control group simply because of occurrence of a non-significant P-value in our study.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":11890,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"European annals of allergy and clinical immunology\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":2.6000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-05-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"European annals of allergy and clinical immunology\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.23822/EurAnnACI.1764-1489.312\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"2023/9/6 0:00:00\",\"PubModel\":\"Epub\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"ALLERGY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"European annals of allergy and clinical immunology","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.23822/EurAnnACI.1764-1489.312","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2023/9/6 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"ALLERGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

摘要:背景。皮下免疫疗法(SCIT)是一种潜在的疾病调节疗法,可有效治疗各种过敏性疾病。疼痛和恐惧是儿童普遍担心的问题,这可能会造成压力并导致负面体验。本研究的目的是评估和比较三种市场上销售的分散注意力装置和氯乙烷喷雾剂(一种用于疼痛手术的常规外用麻醉剂)的有效性,后者是目前临床上减少儿童在施用 SCIT 期间针刺疼痛感的标准护理方法。研究方法共招募了 40 名 4-17 岁的儿童,他们在接受 SCIT 时使用了三种替代止痛疗法中的一种或标准疗法。参试者被随机分配到其中一种减轻疼痛的干预方法中。三个干预组分别是 ShotBlocker® (Bionix,美国俄亥俄州托莱多市)、Buzzy® I (Pain Care Labs,美国佐治亚州亚特兰大市)(仅振动)和 Buzzy® II(振动加冰)。对照组为乙基氯化物喷雾。研究包括 SCIT 施用过程中的两次访问。研究结果在这 40 名儿童中,12 人使用了 ShotBlocker,8 人使用了 Buzzy I,11 人使用了 Buzzy II,9 人使用了乙基氯化物喷雾剂(对照组)。结论每种分散注意力装置之间以及对照组之间均无明显差异。由于样本较少,无法排除第二类错误/假阴性结果。因此,我们不能仅仅因为研究中出现了不显著的 P 值,就断定每种牵引装置与对照组之间不存在真正的差异。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Evaluation of pain-alleviating strategies during allergy shots (subcutaneous immunotherapy): a randomized controlled pilot study.

Summary: Background. Subcutaneous immunotherapy (SCIT) is a potential disease-modifying therapy effective for treatment of various allergic disorders. Pain and fear are common concerns of children, which can pose stress and result in negative experiences. The purpose of this study was to evaluate and compare the effectiveness of three marketed distraction devices and ethyl chloride spray (a routinely used topical anesthetic agent for painful procedures), the current clinical standard of care in reducing the perception of needle pain during SCIT administration in children. Methods. 40 children, aged 4-17 years, receiving SCIT with use of one of three alternative pain therapies or with standard practice were enrolled. Participants were randomly assigned to one of the pain-modifying interventions. The three interventional groups were ShotBlocker® (Bionix, Toledo, OH, USA), Buzzy® I (Pain Care Labs, Atlanta, GA, USA) (vibration only), and Buzzy® II (vibration with ice). Control group was ethyl chloride spray. The study consisted of two visits during SCIT administration process. Results. Of these 40 children, 12 received the ShotBlocker, 8 received the Buzzy I, 11 received the Buzzy II, and 9 received ethyl chloride spray (control group). Conclusions. There were no significant differences found between each of the distraction devices and between the control group. Type II error/false negative finding cannot be ruled out because of a small sample. Therefore, we cannot conclude that no true difference exists between each distraction device and the control group simply because of occurrence of a non-significant P-value in our study.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
4.00
自引率
0.00%
发文量
102
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信