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 the Cochrane Neonatal Collaborative Review Group. All randomized controlled trials which compared pain response to venepuncture vs. heel lance were identified using MEDLINE (1966-June 2004), EMBASE (1980-June 2004), CINAHL (1982-June 2004, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL, The Cochrane Library, Issue 2, 2004), 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 abstracted. All data were analysed using RevMan 4.2. When possible, meta-analysis was done using relative risk (RR) and risk difference (RD), along with their 95% confidence intervals (CI). If RD was significant, number needed to treat (NNT) was calculated. Weighted mean difference (WMD) was used for continuous data. When present, statistically significant between study heterogeneity was reported including the I(2) test. MAIN RESULTS: Four trials were eligible for inclusion in the review. Pain assessments were made using validated pain measures including Neonatal Infant Pain Scale (NIPS), Neonatal Facial Action Coding System (NFCS), Premature Infant Pain Profile (PIPP) score and cry characteristics. Two trials did not report on outcomes for all enrolled infants (not intention to treat analyses). Despite the heterogeneity in the pain measures used, all studies showed statistically significantly lower pain scores for venepuncture as compared to heel lance. A meta-analysis of the NIPS scores during the first minute of the procedure (reported in two studies) was statistically significantly decreased in the VP group compared to the HL group [WMD -1.84 (95% CI -2.61, -1.06)]. There was no statistically significant heterogeneity for this outcome (p = 0.22; I(2) 33.3%). The RR for requiring more than one skin puncture for venepuncture vs. heel lance (reported in 3 studies) was 0.30 (95% CI 0.18, 0.49. The risk difference was -39% (95% CI -50%, -28%). For this outcome there was statistically significant between study heterogeneity (for RR, p=0.02, I(2 )74.3%; for RD, p=0.0001, I(2) 88.9%). The number needed to treat (NNT) to avoid one repeat skin puncture was 3 (95% CI 2, 4). 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. REVIEWERS' CONCLUSIONS: Venepuncture, when performed by a skilled phlebotomist, appears to be the method of choice for blood sampling in term neonates. For each three venepunctures instead of heel lance, the need for one additional skin puncture can be avoided. 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 distillée sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Apprise à partir de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Gemma. Le mode candidate est l'union des têtes enseignantes seuillées; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont ni des étiquettes humaines ni des étiquettes directes de modèles de pointe.
Scores Codex et Gemma par catégorie
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,009 | 0,009 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,008 | 0,001 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,000 | 0,001 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Communication savante | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Science ouverte | 0,002 | 0,000 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,000 | 0,001 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,000 | 0,001 |
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; les deux têtes enseignantes s’accordent sur ce qui est montré ici.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».