Does topical amethocaine gel reduce pain from heel prick blood sampling in premature infants? A randomized double-blind cross-over controlled study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Heel prick blood sampling is the most common painful invasive procedure performed on neonates. Currently, there are no effective ways to provide pain relief from this painful procedure. OBJECTIVE: To assess the efficacy of the topical anesthetic amethocaine 4% gel (Ametop, Smith & Nephew Inc, St Laurent) in reducing the pain of heel prick blood sampling in neonates. METHODS: A randomized, double-blind, placebo controlled, crossover trial was conducted. Neonates between 33 to 37 weeks' gestational age in their first seven days of life were eligible. Heel prick blood sampling was performed on each participant twice. Each infant was randomly assigned to receive either amethocaine 4% gel or placebo to the heel for the first prick, and then received the alternative agent for the second prick. Prick pain was assessed using both Premature Infant Pain Profile (PIPP) and Neonatal Infant Pain Scale (NIPS). Squeeze pain was assessed by NIPS. RESULTS: Ten babies were recruited. There were no significant differences in the average PIPP and NIPS scores between the treatment and placebo groups for both prick and squeeze pains from heel prick blood sampling. For prick pain, linear-regression showed significant correlation between the PIPP and NIPS scores. No adverse reactions were observed after application of either the active or placebo agents. CONCLUSION: Topical amethocaine 4% gel is not shown to reduce prick and squeeze pains significantly from heel prick blood sampling in neonates between 33 to 37 weeks' gestational age. Further studies are needed to find ways to provide effective pain relief from this common procedure.
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
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.005 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.001 |
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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".