A Cross-Sectional Survey on Pain Management in Dermal Filler Injections from Physicians' and Patients' Perspectives.

BACKGROUND: Hyaluronic acid (HA) dermal fillers injection is a common procedure in patients with cosmetic needs. Concomitant pain is a major complaint among patients undergoing HA filler injections. Relevant research is limited and there is no consensus on pain management of dermal filler injection. OBJECTIVES: To assist physicians in determining a more appropriate treatment approach, and to better provide treatment suggestions. METHODS: A nationwide (China) cross-sectional survey was conducted using questionnaires designed for physicians and patients, respectively. A total of 62 semi-structured questionnaires were administered to aesthetic physicians via face-to-face interview, whereas 123 online-based questionnaires were collected from patients who have ever undergone HA treatment. The collected questionnaire information was analyzed using descriptive statistics and content analysis. RESULTS: 42 (67.74%) physicians observed that over 50% of their patients were concerned about pain during injection. 101 (82.11%) of patients were concerned about impending pain ≥5 points (a total score is 10) before injection. For preferred pain relief modalities, 48 (77.42%) physicians would choose a hyaluronic acid dermal filler with lidocaine, and 82 (66.67%) patients would choose anesthetic-containing products. 59 (95.16%) physicians who injected lidocaine-containing hyaluronic acid found patients had a comfortable treatment experience. CONCLUSIONS: Pain management during hyaluronic acid dermal fillers injection is important from both perspectives of physicians and patients. This survey showed that compared with other analgesic methods, lidocaine-containing hyaluronic acid has offered a more satisfying experience. It also provides insights to physicians and patients in pain management. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE V: This journal requires that authors assign a level of evidence to each article. For a full description of these evidence-based medicine ratings, please refer to Table of Contents or the online Instructions to Authors www.springer.com/00266 .

Spin in the abstracts of randomized controlled trials of nurse-led care: A cross-sectional study.

BACKGROUND: Nurse-led models of care had been reported as effective intervention approaches for improving health management and reducing hospitalizations of target patients in a number of studies. However, the reporting quality of studies in the field varied and there was a lack of literature evaluation. OBJECTIVE: The objective of the study was to assess the reporting quality and spin of abstracts of published randomized controlled trials which had statistically not significant primary outcomes. Moreover, potential factors associated with the presence of spin were also assessed. METHODS: Studies on nurse-led care were retrieved from PubMed from January 1st, 2017, to December 31st, 2021. Only randomized controlled trials with statistically not significant primary outcomes were included. Study screening and data extraction were carried out by two reviewers independently. The reporting quality of each abstract was evaluated by the Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials statement, and spin strategies were analyzed using a pre-designed assessment form. Potential predictors for the presence of spin were analyzed by multivariate logistic regressions. RESULTS: The overall reporting quality of the included 75 randomized controlled trial abstracts was not satisfying, with a median score of 16-item Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials statement at 6 (IQR 5, 8). Forty abstracts used at least one spin strategy in abstracts. Among them, 18 (45.0 %) used spin strategies in the result section and 39 (97.5 %) had spin in the conclusion section. The most common spin strategy identified in abstracts was focusing on statistically significant secondary outcomes (12/40, 30.0 %) in the result section and claiming benefit with no consideration of statistically not significant results for the primary outcomes (32/40, 80.0 %) in the conclusion section. Based on the definition, 29 (72.5 %) abstracts were assessed to have high level of spin in the conclusions of abstracts. By multivariate logistic regression analyses, it was found that only geographic origin (reference: studies from Asian countries, OR = 0.118, 95 % CI 0.027 to 0.511, P = 0.004) and the Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials statement score (reference: lower score, OR = 0.625, 95 % CI 0.470 to 0.829, P = 0.001) were significantly associated with the presence of spin in abstracts. CONCLUSION: Among the randomized controlled trials with statistically not significant primary outcomes in the field of nurse-led care, the reporting quality of abstracts needs to be improved. Trials from Asian countries and with lower Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials statement scores are more likely to present spin in abstracts. Findings reported in the result and conclusion sections of these abstracts need to be interpreted with caution.