MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2000261393 · doi:10.1016/j.adnc.2003.09.006

A RANDOMIZED CONTROLLED TRIAL EVALUATING THE EFFICACY OF TETRACAINE GEL FOR PAIN RELIEF FROM PERIPHERALLY INSERTED CENTRAL CATHETERS IN INFANTS

2003· article· en· W2000261393 on OpenAlex
Marilyn Ballantyne, Carol McNair, EMILY UNG, Sharyn Gibbins, Bonnie Stevens

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.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.
aboutThe title or abstract carries a Canadian signal from the geographic lexicon.

Bibliographic record

VenueAdvances in Neonatal Care · 2003
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicPediatric Pain Management Techniques
Canadian institutionsHealth Sciences CentreSunnybrook Health Science CentreSickKids FoundationHospital for Sick ChildrenUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineTetracainePain reliefAnesthesiaRandomized controlled trialPeripherally inserted central catheterSurgeryCatheterLidocaine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Insertion of peripherally inserted central catheters (PICC) is a commonly performed procedure in both preterm and term infants. Tetracaine 4% gel (Ametop; Smith & Nephew Inc, St. Laurent, Quebec), a topical anesthetic, although reported to be effective for reducing the pain of venipuncture in neonates, has not been investigated for the management of pain associated with the PICC procedure. PURPOSE: To determine the efficacy of tetracaine gel for managing the pain associated with the PICC procedure in preterm and term infants. METHODS: A double-blind, placebo-controlled, randomized controlled trial (RCT) design was used. Infants undergoing nonurgent PICC insertion were randomized to receive either the treatment (1.0 g of tetracaine 4% gel) or placebo control (1.0 g of eucerin-plus cream) applied to the skin under occlusion for 30 minutes before the procedure. Data on the behavioral (facial expression) and physiologic (heart rate and oxygen saturation) indicators of pain were collected via videotaping and computer monitoring throughout the procedure. Data then were coded and measured by independent observers using the Premature Infant Pain Profile (PIPP; Stevens et al, 1996), and analyzed using descriptive statistics and repeated-measures analyses of variance. RESULTS: Forty-nine infants, gestational age 27 to 41 weeks (mean = 33; SD = 4.2) and age at time of insertion 2 to 85 days (mean = 18; SD = 22.5) participated. No differences were found between the groups at the time of randomization. There were no adverse cardiorespiratory events or local skin reactions in either group. There was a significant within-subjects main effect of time across the procedure (F[48,3] = 11.03; P < 0.0001). There was no significant between-subjects main effect of group (F[48,1] = 0.11; P = 0.74) and no (group x time) interaction (F[48,3] = 0.45; P = 0.72). CONCLUSION: Tetracaine gel was not effective for pain relief for PICC insertion in infants. Its use for pain relief cannot be recommended based on the results of this study. Other pharmacologic, behavioral, and physical interventions should be investigated for safety and relief of procedural pain in this population of infants.

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 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)0.004
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.020
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Randomized trial · Consensus signal: Randomized trial
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.033
Threshold uncertainty score0.989

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.020
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
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 head0.013
GPT teacher head0.325
Teacher spread0.312 · 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