The DOI matches its Crossref record; 2 of the 2 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Comparison of Ring Block, Dorsal Penile Nerve Block, and Topical Anesthesia for Neonatal Circumcision: A Randomized Controlled Trial
Abstract
CONTEXT: Beliefs about the safety and effectiveness of current anesthetics have resulted in many newborns being circumcised without the benefit of anesthesia. OBJECTIVE: To compare ring block, dorsal penile nerve block, a topical eutectic mixture of local anesthetics (EMLA), and topical placebo when used for neonatal circumcision. The placebo represented current practice, with no anesthetic for neonatal circumcision. DESIGN: A randomized controlled trial. SETTING: Antenatal units in 2 tertiary care hospitals in Edmonton, Alberta. PARTICIPANTS: A consecutive sample of 52 healthy, full-term, male newborns, aged 1 to 3 days. INTERVENTIONS: Physiological and behavioral monitoring occurred in a series of trials: baseline, drug application, preparation, circumcision, and postcircumcision. Surgical procedures defined the following 4 stages of the circumcision: cleansing, separation, clamp on, and clamp off. Methemoglobin level was assessed 6 hours after surgery. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Heart rate, cry, and methemoglobin level. RESULTS: Newborns in the untreated placebo group exhibited homogeneous responses that consisted of sustained elevation of heart rate and high-pitched cry throughout the circumcision and following. Two newborns in the placebo group became ill following circumcision (choking and apnea). The 3 treatment groups all had significantly less crying and lower heart rates during and following circumcision compared with the untreated group. The ring block was equally effective through all stages of the circumcision, whereas the dorsal penile nerve block and EMLA were not effective during foreskin separation and incision. Methemoglobin levels were highest in the EMLA group, although no newborn required treatment. CONCLUSIONS: The most effective anesthetic is the ring block; EMLA is the least effective. It is our recommendation that an anesthetic should be administered to newborns prior to undergoing circumcision.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cites
Health Measurement Scales: A practical guide to their development and use
Streiner, D. L., Norman, G. R., & Cairney, J. (2014) · doi:10.1093/med/9780199685219.001.0001 · Cited by 2,564
Development of emotional sweating in the newborn infant.
Harpin, V. A., & Rutter, N. (1982) · Archives of Disease in Childhood · doi:10.1136/adc.57.9.691 · Cited by 97
Cited by
TASK FORCE ON CIRCUMCISION, Blank, S., Brady, M., Buerk, E., Carlo, W., Diekema, D., Freedman, A., Maxwell, L., & Wegner, S. (2012) · Pediatrics · doi:10.1542/peds.2012-1989 · Cited by 592
Data Extraction Errors in Meta-analyses That Use Standardized Mean Differences
Gøtzsche, P. C., Hróbjartsson, A., Marić, K., & Tendal, B. (2007) · JAMA · doi:10.1001/jama.298.4.430 · Cited by 238
Combined Analgesia and Local Anesthesia to Minimize Pain During Circumcision
Taddio, A., Pollock, N., Gilbert-MacLeod, C., Ohlsson, K., & Koren, G. (2000) · Archives of Pediatrics & Adolescent Medicine · doi:10.1001/archpedi.154.6.620 · Cited by 65
Metadata
- Authors
- Lander, J.
- Venue
- JAMA
- Publisher
- American Medical Association (AMA)
- Published
- 1997-12-24
- Volume
- 278
- Issue
- 24
- Pages
- 2157
- ISSN
- 0002-9955 (ISSN-L)
- 0098-7484
- OpenAlex
- W1974945909
- Cited by
- 192
- References
- 2
- FWCI
- 11.80
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Comparison of Ring Block, Dorsal Penile Nerve Block, and Topical Anesthesia for Neonatal Circumcision: A Randomized Controlled Trial. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1001/jama.1997.03550240047032
- The paper
- Lander, J. (1997). Comparison of Ring Block, Dorsal Penile Nerve Block, and Topical Anesthesia for Neonatal Circumcision: A Randomized Controlled Trial. JAMA. https://doi.org/10.1001/jama.1997.03550240047032
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.