2014
DOI: 10.4187/respcare.03865
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Is There an Easy, Effective, Efficient, and Inexpensive Technique to Reduce Pain of Arterial Punctures?

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
2
1

Citation Types

0
3
0

Year Published

2019
2019
2022
2022

Publication Types

Select...
4
1

Relationship

0
5

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 5 publications
(3 citation statements)
references
References 7 publications
0
3
0
Order By: Relevance
“…Furthermore, its cost is reasonable. Although McSwain and Yeager29 argued that the concept of this device has gained popularity, it is not yet broadly available.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Furthermore, its cost is reasonable. Although McSwain and Yeager29 argued that the concept of this device has gained popularity, it is not yet broadly available.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Cryotherapy also emerged as beneficial in reducing patients' perception of arterial puncture-related pain, with a mean pain reduction of 1.13 on a scale of 10. Apart from some comorbid clinical conditions, such as Raynaud's disease and scleroderma, for which cooling may have significant adverse effects ( Poredos and Poredos, 2016 ), cryotherapy can be considered a valid alternative to local anesthetic infiltration for several reasons, including its availability, rapid effectiveness, saf ety, ease of application, noninvasive profile, and favorable cost-benefit ratio ( McSwain and Yeager, 2015 ). In our studies, cryotherapy was applied for a median of 3 min before arterial puncture, thus suggesting that the additional time required for this technique is not prohibitive.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…The screening of titles and abstracts led to the identification and removal of 932 duplicates and the inclusion of 46 articles into the full text review process. Twelve ( Bates and Cutting, 20 01 , Wendler, 20 03 , Çelik et al, 2011, Chauvin et al, 2020, Chvetzoff, 2006, Dawson and Hogg, 2005, Eslami et al, 2020, Li et al, 2016, McSwain and Yeager, 2015, Ouadhour et al, 2008, Pouso Garrido, 2017, Stewart et al, 2021 did not meet the inclusion criteria and were excluded (Table A2, Appendix 1). The manual review of included papers revealed nine additional articles, thus 43 articles were included in the systematic review ( Fig.…”
Section: Articles Included In Systematic Review and Meta-analysismentioning
confidence: 99%