Venepuncture versus heel lance for blood sampling in term neonates
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
BACKGROUND: Heel lance has been the conventional method of blood sampling in neonates for screening tests. Neonates undergoing this procedure experience pain. Despite various studies evaluating the role of pharmacological and non-pharmacological interventions to date, there are no effective and practical methods to alleviate pain from heel lance. OBJECTIVES: To determine whether venepuncture or heel lance is less painful and more effective for blood sampling in term neonates. SEARCH STRATEGY: Systematic search in accordance with Cochrane Neonatal Collaborative Review Group. All randomized controlled trials which compared pain response to venepuncture vs. heel lance were searched using MEDLINE, Embase, CINAHL, the Cochrane Library, reference lists of identified trials and personal files. No language restrictions were applied. SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomized controlled trials which compared pain response to venepuncture vs. heel lance were selected for this review. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Data regarding the primary outcome of pain response to venepuncture vs. heel lance as assessed by validated pain measures were abstracted. Secondary outcomes including the need of repeat blood sampling, bruising/hematoma at local site, and parental perception of their own anxiety and infant's pain were also abstracted. All data were analysed using Revman 3.1. When possible, meta-analysis was done using relative risk (RR) and event rate difference (ERD), along with their 95% confidence intervals (CI). If ERD was significant, number needed to treat (NNT) was calculated. MAIN RESULTS: Two trials were eligible for inclusion in the review. One study using Neonatal Infant Pain Scale (NIPS) and one study using Neonatal Facial Action Coding System (NFCS) and cry duration showed statistically significantly lower pain scores for venepuncture as compared to heel lance. In one study, maternal anxiety was noted to be higher in the venepuncture group as compared to heel lance group prior to the procedure; however, after observing the procedure, mothers rated their infant's pain to be lower in the venepuncture group. A meta-analysis was performed on the need for at least one additional skin puncture to obtain the required amount of blood using venepuncture as compared to heel lance. The relative risk for requiring more than one skin puncture for venepuncture versus heel lance was 0.19 [95% confidence interval (CI) 0.10, 0.38]. The risk difference was -53% (95% CI -66%, -40%). The number needed to treat (NNT) to avoid one repeat skin puncture was 1.9 (95% CI 1.5, 2.5). REVIEWER'S CONCLUSIONS: Venepuncture, when performed by a trained phlebotomist, appears to be the method of choice for blood sampling in term neonates. For each two venepunctures instead of heel lance, the need for one additional skin puncture can be avoided. In view of the promising results derived from small studies with some methodological limitations, further well designed randomized controlled trials need to be conducted. The interventions should be compared in settings where several individuals perform the venepuncture and/or the heel lance.
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier
Prédiction machine sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Le volet Gemma est une étiquette directe du modèle pour chaque travail de la base, lue sur la notice réduite au titre. Le volet Codex est un classifieur appris des 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et calibré sur les taux pondérés de l'échantillon; les champs sans appui suffisant ne portent aucun appel Codex. Le mode candidate est l'union des deux volets; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont pas des étiquettes humaines.
Scores du classifieur distillé par catégorie (deux têtes)
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,005 | 0,014 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,001 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,007 | 0,006 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,002 | 0,002 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,000 | 0,001 |
| Communication savante | 0,002 | 0,002 |
| Science ouverte | 0,002 | 0,001 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,002 | 0,002 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,006 | 0,000 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule source (Gemma direct ou Codex distillé), pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».