A trial that compares Monsel's paste with ball electrode for hemostasis after loop electrosurgical excision procedure

Lipscomb, Gary H.; Roberts, Kim A.; Givens, Vanessa M.; Robbins, Dianne

doi:10.1016/j.ajog.2006.01.038

Cited by 10 publications

(15 citation statements)

References 4 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Edelman et al [30] Clinical relevance 15 Hui et al [31] Clinical significance 20 Assis et al [32] Clinically significant change 20 !10%, 11e20%, 21e30%, O30% Suzuki et al [23] Clinically beneficial effect 10 Morgan et al [33] Clinically important difference 30 Pendleton et al [34] Clinically or substantively significant 10 Cepeda et al [35] Clinically meaningful decrease in pain 50% Langford et al [27] Clinically meaningful difference 10 38 Ilfeld et al [36] Clinically relevant 40 Nikolajsen et al [37] Clinically relevant 20 40 Qerama et al [21] Clinically relevant 20 30 30% Finnerup et al [38] Clinically relevant difference 15 33% van Wijck et al [39] Clinically relevant pain 30 Lipscomb et al [18] Clinically significant 4 Turan et al [40] Clinically significant 15 Rog et al [41] Clinically significant 17.5 50% Carvalho et al [42] Clinically significant difference 30 Ong et al [43] Clinically significant difference 20 Berry and Petersen [20] Effect sizedclinically significant 30 Chang et al [44] Minimal clinically significant difference 13 Wong et al [25] Minimum clinically important 20% Hinman et al [45] Minimum clinically important difference 175 Chae et al [46] Minimum clinically significant difference 20 mm…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 96%

“…We propose some recommendations for defining a clinically relevant difference in clinical trials assessing pain with a VAS or an NRS Lipscomb et al [18]: Difference between groups was considered not clinically relevant, because both group means were !30 mm. Farrar et al [19]: The clinical improvement was 20 mm or 30% of improvement at the individual level.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Systematic review reveals heterogeneity in definition of a clinically relevant difference in pain

Ruyssen‐Witrand¹,

Tubach²,

Ravaud³

2011

Journal of Clinical Epidemiology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Objective: To describe the pain decrease considered as clinically relevant when designing a trial and reporting its results. Methods: A systematic review of the literature in MEDLINE was conducted to select randomized controlled trials (RCTs) with pain as a primary outcome. Data extracted included the definition (terms and values) of a clinically relevant difference in pain, the type of pain studied (acute or chronic), the level of application (group or individual) of the clinically relevant difference, and the reference justifying the choice of value for clinically relevant difference.Study Design and Setting: Seventy-four trials were included, and only 16 articles justified the choice of a value for clinically relevant difference with a reference citation. The values chosen for the clinically relevant relative decrease in pain varied from 4 to 40 mm or from 15% to 55% at the group level and from 20 to 50 mm at the individual level. In seven articles, the authors confused the application of the reference value at the individual or group level.Conclusion: Our review revealed a great heterogeneity in definition, format, and values of what is considered a clinically relevant difference in pain in RCTs of analgesics, and standardizations are advisable. Ó

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 96%

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Systematic review reveals heterogeneity in definition of a clinically relevant difference in pain

Ruyssen‐Witrand¹,

Tubach²,

Ravaud³

2011

Journal of Clinical Epidemiology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…A substantial variation in MCSD on VAS can be observed across different studies with chosen values ranging from 4 to 30 mm on a scale of 0–100 (Lipscomb et al . , Morgan et al . ).…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Calculation of minimum clinically significant difference is a contentious issue in the field of medical statistics. A substantial variation in MCSD on VAS can be observed across different studies with chosen values ranging from 4 to 30 mm on a scale of 0-100 (Lipscomb et al 2006, Morgan et al 2006. Patient expectations are highly variable, and the MCSD is influenced by a number of factors including, amongst others, the type of pain (Wang et al 2011) or the region affected (Parker et al 2012).…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Pain following foraminal enlargement in mandibular molars with necrosis and apical periodontitis: A randomized controlled trial

Saini¹,

Sangwan²,

Sangwan³

2015

Int Endodontic J

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…For example, the prophylactic application of Monsel’s solution to the cervical wound does not reduce postoperative hemorrhage [4]. In another randomized controlled trial (RCT), application of Monsel’s solution showed no significant difference in blood loss compared to ball electrode coagulation [5]. In a RCT conducted in Thailand, application of Monsel’s solution after ball electrode coagulation reduced the duration of uncomplicated postoperative hemorrhage and the incidence of minor hemorrhage lasting >2 weeks compared to ball electrode coagulation alone; however, the application of Monsel’s solution did not reduce the incidence of hemorrhage requiring treatment [6].…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Efficacy of Fibrin Sealant in Reducing Hemorrhage after a Loop Electrosurgical Excision Procedure

Kim

Park

Kim

et al. 2012

Gynecol Obstet Invest

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background/Aims: We examined the association of fibrin sealant use with post-operative hemorrhage in patients who underwent a loop electrosurgical excision procedure (LEEP). Methods: We retrospectively collected clinicopathologic data of 344 patients who underwent LEEP at our institute between 2007 and 2009. We defined hemorrhage which occurred between 1 and 30 days after LEEP and required electrocautery to achieve hemostasis as severe secondary hemorrhage (SSH). We determined whether or not the use of fibrin sealant during LEEP was associated with a decreased occurrence of SSH. In addition, we examined the associations of other clinicopathologic variables with SSH and fibrin sealant use. Results: SSH occurred in 6 of 200 patients (3%) with fibrin sealant and in 12 of 144 patients (8%) without fibrin sealant. Based on univariate analysis, the use of fibrin sealant was associated with SSH (p = 0.028). However, age, surgeons and pathologic diagnosis were not associated with SSH. Based on multivariate analysis, the use of fibrin sealant was associated with less SSH (p = 0.033, OR = 0.328, 95% CI 0.117–0.917). Conclusion: Fibrin sealant use reduces the incidence of severe post-operative hemorrhage after LEEP.

show abstract

A trial that compares Monsel's paste with ball electrode for hemostasis after loop electrosurgical excision procedure

Cited by 10 publications

References 4 publications

Systematic review reveals heterogeneity in definition of a clinically relevant difference in pain

Systematic review reveals heterogeneity in definition of a clinically relevant difference in pain

Pain following foraminal enlargement in mandibular molars with necrosis and apical periodontitis: A randomized controlled trial

Efficacy of Fibrin Sealant in Reducing Hemorrhage after a Loop Electrosurgical Excision Procedure

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About