↓ Skip to main content

Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews

Vapocoolants (cold spray) for pain treatment during intravenous cannulation

Overview of attention for article published in Cochrane database of systematic reviews, April 2016
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (92nd percentile)
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (70th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
38 X users
facebook
4 Facebook pages
wikipedia
5 Wikipedia pages

Citations

dimensions_citation
56 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
250 Mendeley
Title
Vapocoolants (cold spray) for pain treatment during intravenous cannulation
Published in
Cochrane database of systematic reviews, April 2016
DOI 10.1002/14651858.cd009484.pub2
Pubmed ID
Authors

Rebecca J Griffith, Vanessa Jordan, David Herd, Peter W Reed, Stuart R Dalziel

Abstract

Intravenous cannulation is a painful procedure that can provoke anxiety and stress. Injecting local anaesthetic can provide analgesia at the time of cannulation, but it is a painful procedure. Topical anaesthetic creams take between 30 and 90 minutes to produce an effect. A quicker acting analgesic allows more timely investigation and treatment. Vapocoolants have been used in this setting, but studies have reported mixed results. To determine effects of vapocoolants on pain associated with intravenous cannulation in adults and children. To explore variables that might affect the performance of vapocoolants, including time required for application, distance from the skin when applied and time to cannulation. To look at adverse effects associated with the use of vapocoolants. We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE, EMBASE, Latin American Caribbean Health Sciences Literature (LILACS), the Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature (CINAHL), the Institute for Scientific Information (ISI) Web of Science and the http://clinicaltrials.gov/, http://www.controlled-trials.com/ and http://www.trialscentral.org/ databases to 1 May 2015. We applied no language restrictions. We also scanned the reference lists of included papers. We included all blinded and unblinded randomized controlled trials (RTCs) comparing any vapocoolant with placebo or control to reduce pain during intravenous cannulation in adults and children. Three review authors independently assessed trial quality and extracted data, contacted study authors for additional information and assessed included studies for risk of bias. We collected and analysed data for the primary outcome of pain during cannulation, and for the secondary outcomes of pain associated with application of the vapocoolant, first attempt success rate of intravenous cannulation, adverse events and participant satisfaction. We performed subgroup analyses for the primary outcome to examine differences based on age of participant, type of vapocoolant used, application time of vapocoolant and clinical situation (emergency vs elective). We used random-effects model meta-analysis in RevMan 5.3 and assessed heterogeneity between trial results by examining forest plots and calculating the I(2) statistic. We found nine suitable studies of 1070 participants and included them in the qualitative analyses. We included eight studies of 848 participants in the meta-analysis for the primary outcome (pain during intravenous cannulation). Use of vapocoolants resulted in a reduction in pain scores as measured by a linear 100 mm visual analogue scale (VAS 100) compared with controls (difference between means -12.5 mm, 95% confidence interval (CI) -18.7 to -6.4 mm; moderate-quality evidence). We could not include in the meta-analysis one study, which showed no effects of the intervention.Use of vapocoolants resulted in increased pain scores at the time of application as measured by a VAS 100 compared with controls (difference between means 6.3 mm, 95% CI 2.2 to 10.3 mm; four studies, 461 participants; high-quality evidence) and led to no difference in first attempt success compared with controls (risk ratio (RR) 1.00, 95% CI 0.94 to 1.06; six studies, 812 participants; moderate-quality evidence). We documented eight minor adverse events reported in 279 vapocoolant participants (risk difference (RD) 0.03, 95% CI 0 to 0.05; five studies, 551 participants; low quality-evidence).The overall risk of bias of individual studies ranged from low to high, with high risk of bias for performance and detection bias in four studies. Sensitivity analysis showed that exclusion of studies at high or unclear risk of bias did not materially alter the results of this review. Moderate-quality evidence indicates that use of a vapocoolant immediately before intravenous cannulation reduces pain during the procedure. Use of vapocoolant does not increase the difficulty of cannulation nor cause serious adverse effects but is associated with mild discomfort during application.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 38 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 250 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Spain 1 <1%
Unknown 249 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 40 16%
Student > Bachelor 31 12%
Researcher 22 9%
Student > Ph. D. Student 17 7%
Other 14 6%
Other 42 17%
Unknown 84 34%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 55 22%
Nursing and Health Professions 40 16%
Psychology 16 6%
Social Sciences 7 3%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 7 3%
Other 27 11%
Unknown 98 39%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 28. 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 06 December 2023.
All research outputs
#1,424,803
of 25,962,638 outputs
Outputs from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#2,901
of 13,169 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#23,186
of 313,827 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#86
of 291 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,962,638 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 94th percentile: it's in the top 10% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 13,169 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 35.2. This one has done well, scoring higher than 77% 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 313,827 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 92% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 291 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 70% of its contemporaries.