Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 192

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

Lander, Janice·1997·JAMA

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.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1001/jama.1997.03550240047032

Cites

2 of 2 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

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.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

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

Show all 2 references

Cited by

See all 192

Metadata

Authors
Lander, J.
Venue
JAMA
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.