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 OpenAlexaffabout
Marilyn Ballantyne, Carol McNair, EMILY UNG, Sharyn Gibbins, Bonnie Stevens

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.

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)0.005
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.009
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
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 score0.008
Threshold uncertainty score0.026

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0050.009
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0060.002
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.002
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0020.001
Research integrity0.0030.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0080.001

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.

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

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 designRandomized trial
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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

Citations38
Published2003
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAdvances in Neonatal CareSame topicPediatric Pain Management TechniquesFrench-language works237,207