Nonpharmacological Management of Procedural Pain in Infants and Young Children: An Abridged Cochrane Review
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Acute pain and distress during medical procedures are commonplace for young children. OBJECTIVE: To assess the efficacy of nonpharmacological interventions for acute procedural pain in children up to three years of age. METHODS: Study inclusion criteria were: participants <3 years of age, involved in a randomized controlled or crossover trial, and use of a 'no treatment' control group (51 studies; n=3396). Additional studies meeting all criteria except for study design (eg, use of active control group) were qualitatively described (n=20). RESULTS: For every intervention, data were analyzed separately according to age group (preterm-born, term-born neonate and older infant ⁄ young child) and type of pain response (pain reactivity, immediate pain-related regulation). The largest standardized mean differences (SMD) for pain reactivity were as follows: sucking-related interventions (preterm: -0.42 [95% CI -0.68 to -0.15]; neonate -1.45 [CI -2.34 to -0.57]), kangaroo care (preterm -1.12 [95% CI -2.04 to -0.21]), and swaddling ⁄ facilitated tucking (preterm -0.97 [95% CI -1.63 to -0.31]). For immediate pain-related regulation, the largest SMDs were: sucking-related interventions (preterm -0.38 [95% CI -0.59 to -0.17]; neonate -0.90 [CI -1.54 to -0.25]), kangaroo care 0.77 (95% CI -1.50 to -0.03]), swaddling ⁄ facilitated tucking (preterm -0.75 [95% CI -1.14 to -0.36]), and rocking ⁄ holding (neonate -0.75 [95% CI -1.20 to -0.30]). The presence of significant heterogeneity limited confidence in nonsignificant findings for certain other analyses. CONCLUSIONS: Although a number of nonpharmacological treatments have sufficient evidence supporting their efficacy with preterm infants and healthy neonates, no treatments had sufficient evidence to support efficacy with healthy older infants ⁄ young children.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.027 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it