↓ Skip to main content

Eutectic mixture of local anaesthetics (EMLA®) as a primary dressing on painful chronic leg ulcers: a pilot randomised controlled trial

Overview of attention for article published in Pilot and Feasibility Studies, July 2018
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

twitter
1 X user

Citations

dimensions_citation
4 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
50 Mendeley
Title
Eutectic mixture of local anaesthetics (EMLA®) as a primary dressing on painful chronic leg ulcers: a pilot randomised controlled trial
Published in
Pilot and Feasibility Studies, July 2018
DOI 10.1186/s40814-018-0312-6
Pubmed ID
Authors

Anne Purcell, Thomas Buckley, Jennie King, Wendy Moyle, Andrea P. Marshall

Abstract

The physical, occupational, social and psychological impact of chronic leg ulcers (CLUs) on an individual is considerable. Wound-related pain (WRP), the most common symptom, is frequently reported as moderate to severe and mostly occurs at dressing change. WRP pain may not be alleviated by oral analgesics alone. Persistent poorly controlled leg ulcer pain can negatively impact wound healing and health-related quality of life (HRQoL). A pilot, parallel group, non-blinded, randomised controlled trial was conducted in six procedure clinics located in a public community nursing service in New South Wales, Australia to evaluate eutectic mixture of local anaesthetics (EMLA®) on painful CLUs when used as a primary dressing. The primary objective was to assess feasibility by using pre-determined criteria: at least 80% recruitment rate, 80% retention rate and 80% adherence to the study protocol. Key eligibility criteria were that participants had a painful CLU no larger than 100 cm2, a numerical rating scale (NRS) wound-related pain intensity score equal to or greater than 4, low to moderate exudate, no contraindications to EMLA® and capacity to consent. One hundred and seven patients with painful CLUs were screened for eligibility; 56% (n = 60) were eligible and consented to participate in the study. Participants were randomly assigned to the intervention (n = 30) or control (n = 30) groups. The intervention group received a measured dose of the topical anaesthetic EMLA® 5% cream daily as a primary dressing for 4 weeks followed by usual wound management for a further 8 weeks. The control group received usual wound management. Participants and investigators were not blinded to the treatment. WRP was measured at every dressing change. Wound healing and HRQoL were measured at baseline, 4 and 12 weeks. Recruitment rate was lower than expected which likely meant patients were missed. Study retention rate was 90% (n = 54). Intervention fidelity was impacted by availability of resources and patient factors such as increased WRP. This study identified that a larger randomised controlled trial investigating EMLA® applied as a primary dressing on painful chronic leg ulcers is feasible with modifications to the study protocol. Australian New Zealand Clinical Trials Register: Registered 16 December, 2009.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 X user 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 50 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 50 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 5 10%
Student > Bachelor 5 10%
Researcher 4 8%
Student > Ph. D. Student 4 8%
Professor 3 6%
Other 12 24%
Unknown 17 34%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Nursing and Health Professions 15 30%
Medicine and Dentistry 7 14%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 3 6%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 2 4%
Veterinary Science and Veterinary Medicine 2 4%
Other 2 4%
Unknown 19 38%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. 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 14 July 2018.
All research outputs
#18,643,992
of 23,096,849 outputs
Outputs from Pilot and Feasibility Studies
#855
of 1,049 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#252,921
of 327,720 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Pilot and Feasibility Studies
#37
of 41 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,096,849 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 11th percentile – i.e., 11% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,049 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 6.9. This one is in the 6th percentile – i.e., 6% 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 327,720 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 12th percentile – i.e., 12% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 41 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 7th percentile – i.e., 7% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.