↓ Skip to main content

Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews

Pain relief for women with cervical intraepithelial neoplasia undergoing colposcopy treatment

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

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (75th percentile)
  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source

Mentioned by

8 tweeters
2 Wikipedia pages


15 Dimensions

Readers on

226 Mendeley
Pain relief for women with cervical intraepithelial neoplasia undergoing colposcopy treatment
Published in
Cochrane database of systematic reviews, July 2016
DOI 10.1002/14651858.cd006120.pub4
Pubmed ID

Ketankumar Gajjar, Pierre PL Martin-Hirsch, Andrew Bryant, Gemma L Owens


Pre-cancerous lesions of cervix (cervical intraepithelial neoplasia (CIN)) are usually treated with excisional or ablative procedures. In the UK, the National Health Service (NHS) cervical screening guidelines suggest that over 80% of treatments should be performed in an outpatient setting (colposcopy clinics). Furthermore, these guidelines suggest that analgesia should always be given prior to laser or excisional treatments. Currently various pain relief strategies are employed that may reduce pain during these procedures. To assess whether the administration of pain relief (analgesia) reduces pain during colposcopy treatment and in the postoperative period. We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL 2016, Issue 2), MEDLINE (1950 to March week 3, 2016) and Embase (1980 to week 12, 2016) for studies of any design relating to analgesia for colposcopic management. We also searched registers of clinical trials, abstracts of scientific meetings, reference lists of included studies and contacted experts in the field. Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) that compared all types of pain relief before, during or after outpatient treatment to the cervix, in women with CIN undergoing loop excision, laser ablation, laser excision or cryosurgery in an outpatient colposcopy clinic setting. We independently assessed study eligibility, extracted data and assessed risk of bias. We entered data into Review Manager 5 and double checked it for accuracy. Where possible, we expressed results as mean pain score and standard error of the mean with 95% confidence intervals (CI) and synthesised data in a meta-analysis. We included 19 RCTs (1720 women) of varying methodological quality in the review. These trials compared a variety of interventions aimed at reducing pain in women who underwent treatment for CIN, including cervical injection with lignocaine alone, lignocaine with adrenaline, buffered lignocaine with adrenaline, prilocaine with felypressin, oral analgesics (non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs)), inhalation analgesia (gas mixture of isoflurane and desflurane), lignocaine spray, cocaine spray, local application of benzocaine gel, lignocaine-prilocaine cream (EMLA cream) and transcutaneous electrical nerve stimulation (TENS).Most comparisons were restricted to single trial analyses and were under-powered to detect differences in pain scores between treatments that may or may not have been present. There was no difference in pain relief between women who received local anaesthetic infiltration (lignocaine 2%; administered as a paracervical or direct cervical injection) and a saline placebo (mean difference (MD) -13.74; 95% CI -34.32 to 6.83; 2 trials; 130 women; low quality evidence). However, when local anaesthetic was combined with a vasoconstrictor agent (one trial used lignocaine plus adrenaline while the second trial used prilocaine plus felypressin), there was less pain (on visual analogue scale (VAS)) compared with no treatment (MD -23.73; 95% CI -37.53 to -9.93; 2 trials; 95 women; low quality evidence). Comparing two preparations of local anaesthetic combined with vasoconstrictor, prilocaine plus felypressin did not differ from lignocaine plus adrenaline for its effect on pain control (MD -0.05; 95% CI -0.26 to 0.16; 1 trial; 200 women). Although the mean (± standard deviation (SD)) observed blood loss score was less with lignocaine plus adrenaline (1.33 ± 1.05) compared with prilocaine plus felypressin (1.74 ± 0.98), the difference was not clinically as the overall scores in both groups were low (MD 0.41; 95% CI 0.13 to 0.69; 1 trial; 200 women). Inhalation of gas mixture (isoflurane and desflurane) in addition to standard cervical injection with prilocaine plus felypressin resulted in less pain during the LLETZ (loop excision of the transformation zone) procedure (MD -7.20; 95% CI -12.45 to -1.95; 1 trial; 389 women). Lignocaine plus ornipressin resulted in less measured blood loss (MD -8.75 ml; 95% CI -10.43 to -7.07; 1 trial; 100 women) and a shorter duration of treatment (MD -7.72 minutes; 95% CI -8.49 to -6.95; 1 trial; 100 women) than cervical infiltration with lignocaine alone. Buffered solution (sodium bicarbonate buffer mixed with lignocaine plus adrenaline) was not superior to non-buffered solution of lignocaine plus adrenaline in relieving pain during the procedure (MD -8.00; 95% CI -17.57 to 1.57; 1 trial; 52 women).One meta-analysis found no difference in pain using VAS between women who received oral analgesic and women who received placebo (MD -3.51; 95% CI -10.03 to 3.01; 2 trials; 129 women; low quality evidence).Cocaine spray was associated with less pain (MD -28.00; 95% CI -37.86 to -18.14; 1 trial; 50 women) and blood loss (MD 0.04; 95% CI 0 to 0.70; 1 trial; 50 women) than placebo.None of the trials reported serious adverse events and majority of trials were at moderate or high risk of bias (13 trials). Based on two small trials, there was no difference in pain relief in women receiving oral analgesics compared with placebo or no treatment (MD -3.51; 95% CI -10.03 to 3.01; 129 women). We consider this evidence to be of a low to moderate quality. In routine clinical practice, intracervical injection of local anaesthetic with a vasoconstrictor (lignocaine plus adrenaline or prilocaine plus felypressin) appears to be the optimum analgesia for treatment. However, further high quality, adequately powered trials should be undertaken in order to provide the data necessary to estimate the efficacy of oral analgesics, the optimal route of administration and dose of local anaesthetics.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 8 tweeters who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 226 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 226 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 32 14%
Student > Bachelor 27 12%
Student > Ph. D. Student 21 9%
Researcher 17 8%
Other 15 7%
Other 46 20%
Unknown 68 30%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 78 35%
Nursing and Health Professions 31 14%
Psychology 8 4%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 7 3%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 4 2%
Other 22 10%
Unknown 76 34%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 7. 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 17 December 2020.
All research outputs
of 19,782,046 outputs
Outputs from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
of 11,959 outputs
Outputs of similar age
of 276,886 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
of 148 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 19,782,046 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 80th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 11,959 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 27.7. This one is in the 45th percentile – i.e., 45% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
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 276,886 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done well, scoring higher than 75% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 148 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 38th percentile – i.e., 38% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.