Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 284

The DOI matches its Crossref record.

Convenience sampling

Sedgwick, P.·2013·BMJ

Abstract

Researchers assessed the efficacy, acceptability, and safety of a topical alkane vapocoolant spray in reducing pain during intravenous cannulation in adults. A randomised double blind placebo controlled trial study design was used. The intervention was a blend of propane, butane, and pentane, which was sprayed less than 15 seconds before cannulation on to the relevant area of skin from a distance of 12 cm for two seconds. The control treatment was a water spray. The primary outcomemeasure was pain during cannulation, measured with a 100 mm visual analogue scale. Secondary outcome measures included discomfort during administration of the spray, success rate of cannulation, and side effects of treatment. Participants were adults who required intravenous cannulation in the emergency department of ametropolitan teaching hospital. In total, 201 adult patients were recruited using convenience sampling. The intervention group consisted of 109 (54%) men, who had a mean (standard deviation) age of 58.2 (19.5) years. The researchers concluded that topical alkane vapocoolant spray was effective, acceptable, and safe in reducing pain during peripheral intravenous cannulation in adults in the emergency department. Which of the following statements, if any, are true? a) Convenience sampling constitutes probability sampling

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 · 10.1136/bmj.f6304

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.

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

Cited by

Metadata

Authors
Sedgwick, P.
Venue
BMJ
Publisher
BMJ
Published
2013-10-25
Volume
347
Issue
oct25 2
Pages
f6304-f6304
ISSN
1756-1833 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W4241509314
Cited by
284
References
0
FWCI
3.09
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

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.