MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Pain relief for neonatal circumcision

2004· review· en· W1565260094 on OpenAlexaff
Barbara Brady-Fryer, Natasha Wiebe, Janice A Lander

Bibliographic record

VenueCochrane Database of Systematic Reviews · 2004
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicPediatric Pain Management Techniques
Canadian institutionsUniversity of AlbertaRoyal Alexandra HospitalCapital District Health Authority
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicinePlaceboCryingPsychological interventionAdverse effectCochrane LibraryMEDLINEMeta-analysisRandomized controlled trialPediatricsPhysical therapySurgeryInternal medicineAlternative medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Circumcision is a painful procedure that many newborn males undergo in the first few days after birth. Interventions are available to reduce pain at circumcision; however, many newborns are circumcised without pain management. OBJECTIVES: The objective of this review was to assess the effectiveness and safety of interventions for reducing pain at neonatal circumcision. SEARCH STRATEGY: We searched Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL, The Cochrane Library, Issue 2, 2004), MEDLINE (1966 - April 2004), EMBASE (1988 - 2004 week 19), CINAHL (1982 - May week 1 2004), Dissertation Abstracts (1986 - May 2004), Proceedings of the World Congress on Pain (1993 - 1999), and reference lists of articles. Language restrictions were not imposed. SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomised controlled trials comparing pain interventions with placebo or no treatment or comparing two active pain interventions in male term or preterm infants undergoing circumcision. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two independent reviewers assessed trial quality and extracted data. Ten authors were contacted for additional information. Adverse effects information was obtained from the trial reports. For meta-analysis, data on a continuous scale were reported as weighted mean difference (WMD) or, when the units were not compatible, as standardized mean difference. MAIN RESULTS: Thirty-five trials involving 1,984 newborns were included. Thirty-three trials enrolled healthy, full term neonates, and two enrolled infants born preterm. Fourteen trials involving 592 newborns compared dorsal penile nerve block (DPNB) with placebo or no treatment. Compared to placebo/no treatment, DPNB demonstrated significantly lower heart rate [WMD -35 bpm, 95% CI -41 to -30], decreased time crying [WMD -54 %, 95% CI -64 to -44], and increased oxygen saturation [WMD 3.2 %, 95% CI 2.7 to 3.7]. Six trials involving 190 newborns compared eutectic mixture of analgesics (EMLA) with placebo. EMLA demonstrated significantly lower facial action scores [WMD -46.5, 95% CI -80.4 to -12.6], decreased time crying [WMD - 15.8 %, 95% CI -20.8 to -6.8] and lower heart rate [WMD -15 bpm, 95% CI -19 to -10]. DPNB, compared with EMLA in four trials involving 164 newborns, demonstrated significantly lower heart rate [WMD -17 bpm, 95% CI -23 to -11] and pain scores. When compared with sucrose in two trials involving 126 newborns, DPNB demonstrated less time crying [MD -166 s, 95% CI -211 to -121], and lower heart rate [WMD -27 bpm, 95% CI -33 to -20]. Results obtained for trials comparing oral sucrose and oral analgesics to placebo, and trials of environmental modification were either inconsistent or were not significantly different. Adverse effects included gagging, choking, and emesis in placebo/untreated groups. Minor bleeding, swelling and hematoma were reported with DPNB. Erythema and mild skin pallor were observed with the use of EMLA. Methaemoglobin levels were evaluated in two trials of EMLA, and results were within normal limits. REVIEWERS' CONCLUSIONS: DPNB was the most frequently studied intervention and was the most effective for circumcision pain. Compared to placebo, EMLA was also effective, but was not as effective as DPNB. Both interventions appear to be safe for use in newborns. None of the studied interventions completely eliminated the pain response to circumcision.

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.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Direct model labels (unvalidated)

Per-model category and study-design labels from the labeling rounds. They are machine output, unvalidated, and the disagreement between models ships as data. No study design here is MEDLINE-validated yet.

Model armCategoriesStudy designConfidence
gemmano category
Domain: not available · Genre: Review
About the Canadian research system: no · About a Canadian topic: no
Systematic reviewlow
gptno category
Domain: not available · Genre: Review
About the Canadian research system: no · About a Canadian topic: no
Systematic reviewhigh
models agreeAgreement compares identical category sets and study designs across arms.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.020
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.019
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch, Meta-epidemiology (narrow)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Systematic review · Consensus signal: Systematic review
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.395
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0200.019
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0120.002
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.098
GPT teacher head0.396
Teacher spread0.297 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Labeled directly by 2 models reading the full record.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designSystematic review
Domainnot available
GenreReview

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations139
Published2004
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCochrane Database of Systematic ReviewsSame topicPediatric Pain Management TechniquesFrench-language works237,207