Binocular vision & strabismus quarterly · 1999
A randomized comparison study of drop versus spray topical cycloplegic application.
Клиническое исследованиеСравнительное исследованиеСтатьяРандомизированное исследованиеНазвание и аннотация: Перевод пока не подготовлен
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Goodman C R, Hunter D G, Repka M X
Аннотация
PURPOSE: To evaluate the acceptance of ocular spray administration.
METHODS: A randomized, single-masked comparison in a cohort of children from 3 to 13 years. Assessment of patient pain was recorded on a visual analog scale. Cycloplegia was assessed by an ophthalmologist masked to the assignment. A questionnaire was used to assess patient acceptance. 126 patients participated. The average age was 7.7 years for spray, 7.1 for drops.
RESULTS: Pain (higher number = more painful): means: 41/100 for spray; 35/100 for drops (P=0.28). No difference in cycloplegia noted (i.e., satisfactory in all subjects). Subjective acceptance: high in both patient groups, but a preference for spray was noted (P=0.06). No untoward drug reactions occurred with either method.
CONCLUSIONS: Cycloplegic spray was as acceptable, or more acceptable than drops. Cycloplegia was comparable for the two methods. Spray application of cycloplegic drugs is a satisfactory route of topical administration for children.
METHODS: A randomized, single-masked comparison in a cohort of children from 3 to 13 years. Assessment of patient pain was recorded on a visual analog scale. Cycloplegia was assessed by an ophthalmologist masked to the assignment. A questionnaire was used to assess patient acceptance. 126 patients participated. The average age was 7.7 years for spray, 7.1 for drops.
RESULTS: Pain (higher number = more painful): means: 41/100 for spray; 35/100 for drops (P=0.28). No difference in cycloplegia noted (i.e., satisfactory in all subjects). Subjective acceptance: high in both patient groups, but a preference for spray was noted (P=0.06). No untoward drug reactions occurred with either method.
CONCLUSIONS: Cycloplegic spray was as acceptable, or more acceptable than drops. Cycloplegia was comparable for the two methods. Spray application of cycloplegic drugs is a satisfactory route of topical administration for children.