MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1953413534 · doi:10.1111/apa.13210

Analgesia, nil or placebo to babies, in trials that test new analgesic treatments for procedural pain

2015· review· en· W1953413534 on OpenAlexaff
Carlo V. Bellieni, Céleste Johnston

Bibliographic record

VenueActa Paediatrica · 2015
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicPediatric Pain Management Techniques
Canadian institutionsMcGill UniversityIzaak Walton Killam Health Centre
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicinePlaceboVenipunctureAnalgesicClinical trialPain managementAnesthesiaPhysical therapyAlternative medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

UNLABELLED: This review assessed how often neonates in control groups experienced unnecessary pain during clinical trials involving procedural pain. We retrieved 45 studies in the 30 months up to June 2015 and found that in 29 (64%) the control babies received either placebos or no treatment. Placebos were used in 15/25 (60%) studies involving heel pricks and in 6/8 (75%) involving venepuncture. CONCLUSION: Despite international guidelines, neonates included in control groups during painful procedures do not receive analgesia in the majority of cases. Several historical reasons can explain this, but in the light of present knowledge, this should not continue. Ethical committees are thereof invited since now to not permit clinical trials that do not explicitly rule out pain during treatments and journals are invited to not publish them.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.010
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.030
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
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 score0.010
Threshold uncertainty score0.053

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0100.030
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0040.003
Bibliometrics0.0030.003
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0020.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.000

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 head0.170
GPT teacher head0.409
Teacher spread0.239 · 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

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

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

Citations45
Published2015
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueActa PaediatricaSame topicPediatric Pain Management TechniquesFrench-language works237,207