Effect of warming adult diphtheria–tetanus vaccine on discomfort after injection: a randomised controlled trial
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To determine whether warming or rubbing adult diphtheria tetanus (ADT) vaccine immediately before administration affects its temperature and reduces the incidence of pain. DESIGN: Double-blind, randomised controlled trial and in-vitro temperature study. SETTING: Emergency department (ED) of a regional hospital between April and December 2001. PATIENTS: Convenience sample of 150 patients aged 16 years or over who presented to the ED requiring ADT booster vaccination. INTERVENTION: Patients were randomised to receive vaccine that was "cold" (no deliberate warming), "rubbed" between the palms for 1 minute, or "warmed" in a 37 degrees C incubator; vaccine was administered as recommended in Australian guidelines. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Incidence of pain and pain score on McGill Present Pain Intensity Questionnaire at 5 minutes, 24 hours and 48 hours after injection; and temperature of vaccine after preparation for simulated administration. RESULTS: The "cold" vaccine had significantly lower temperature (mean, 19.1 degrees C; 95% CI, 17.5-20.7 degrees C) than the "warmed" vaccine (mean, 28.9 degrees C; 95% CI, 28.4-29.4 degrees C) and "rubbed" vaccine (mean, 26.9 degrees C; 95% CI, 24.5-29.3 degrees C). There was no significant difference in incidence of pain between the groups who received vaccine prepared in different ways at any follow-up (5 min: P = 0.62; 24 h: P = 0.58; 48 h: P = 0.61) or overall (P = 0.99). Among those who completed follow-up, incidence of pain at any time was 77/138 (56%); there was no difference in their time-averaged pain scores (P = 0.63) or peak pain scores (P = 0.60). CONCLUSIONS: Warming or rubbing ADT vaccine does not reduce the incidence of pain after administration. Regardless of how ADT vaccine is prepared, its temperature approaches ambient by the time it is injected.
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 | 0.003 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.007 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.015 | 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".