↓ Skip to main content

Dove Medical Press

Effectiveness of various formulations of local anesthetics and additives for topical anesthesia – a prospective, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled study

Overview of attention for article published in Journal of Pain Research, May 2017
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (53rd percentile)
  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source

Mentioned by

wikipedia
1 Wikipedia page

Citations

dimensions_citation
7 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
19 Mendeley
Title
Effectiveness of various formulations of local anesthetics and additives for topical anesthesia – a prospective, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled study
Published in
Journal of Pain Research, May 2017
DOI 10.2147/jpr.s131029
Pubmed ID
Authors

Christian Weilbach, Christian Hoppe, Matthias Karst, Michael Winterhalter, Konstantinos Raymondos, Arthur Schultz, Niels Rahe-Meyer

Abstract

Topical anesthesia is used to control pain associated with many procedures in medicine. Today, the product most commonly applied for topical anesthesia in Germany is EMLA(®) (lidocaine/prilocaine). However, since prilocaine is a methemoglobin-inducing agent, there are limitations to its use, especially in neonates and infants. The aim of this study was to evaluate the effect of prilocaine and lidocaine as well as propylene glycol, a penetration enhancer, and trometamol, a buffer substance, in anesthetic creams. Twenty-nine healthy adults participated in this study. Standardized creams with eight different compositions were applied and left for 20, 40 or 60 min. After exposure to standardized painful stimuli (blunt/sharp with pressures of 0.2, 0.4 or 0.8 N), subjects rated the experimental pain using a visual analog scale. Significant results were only found with an exposure time of 60 min and a stamp pressure of 0.8 N. At a concentration of 20%, lidocaine was more effective compared to placebo and equally effective compared to lidocaine/prilocaine in controlling pain. The analgesic effect of the cream containing lidocaine 10% and additional trometamol was significantly superior to that of placebo and non-inferior to that of lidocaine/prilocaine. In this study, the penetration enhancer propylene glycol did not accelerate the onset of the analgesic effect. In contrast, the addition of trometamol (Tris/THAM) accelerated the onset of the effect compared to the native formulation (at 0.4 and 0.8 N). In all of the adult subjects of this study, the minimum exposure time was 60 min for any of the tested topical anesthetic creams. The results of this study indicate that a cream containing 20% lidocaine, 38% trometamol and 10% propylene glycol may be used as an alternative to lidocaine/prilocaine with a comparable effect and without the need to extend exposure time.

Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 19 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 19 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 4 21%
Lecturer 2 11%
Researcher 2 11%
Student > Postgraduate 2 11%
Other 1 5%
Other 4 21%
Unknown 4 21%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 7 37%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 2 11%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 2 11%
Unspecified 1 5%
Social Sciences 1 5%
Other 1 5%
Unknown 5 26%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 3. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 10 February 2018.
All research outputs
#7,530,253
of 22,977,819 outputs
Outputs from Journal of Pain Research
#758
of 1,757 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#119,412
of 310,777 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Journal of Pain Research
#29
of 55 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,977,819 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 44th percentile – i.e., 44% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,757 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 14.0. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 53% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 310,777 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 53% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 55 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 43rd percentile – i.e., 43% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.