MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2015605416 · doi:10.1001/jama.295.7.793

Intravenous Morphine and Topical Tetracaine for Treatment of Pain in Preterm Neonates Undergoing Central Line Placement

2006· article· en· W2015605416 on OpenAlexaffabout
Anna Taddio

Bibliographic record

VenueJAMA · 2006
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicPediatric Pain Management Techniques
Canadian institutionsSickKids FoundationUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineTetracaineAnesthesiaMorphineAnalgesicRandomized controlled trialGestational ageConfidence intervalSurgeryPregnancyLidocaineInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

CONTEXT: There is limited evidence of the analgesic effectiveness of opioid analgesia or topical anesthesia during central line placement in neonates, and there are no previous studies of their relative effectiveness. OBJECTIVE: To determine the effectiveness and safety of topical tetracaine, intravenous morphine, or tetracaine plus morphine for alleviating pain in ventilated neonates during central line placement. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: Randomized, double-blind, controlled trial enrolling 132 ventilated neonates (mean gestational age, 30.6 [SD, 4.6] weeks at study entry) and conducted between October 2000 and July 2005 in 2 neonatal intensive care units in Toronto, Ontario. INTERVENTIONS: Prior to central line insertion, neonates were randomly assigned to receive tetracaine (n = 42), morphine (n = 38), or both (n = 31); a separate nonrandomized group of 21 neonates receiving neither tetracaine nor morphine was used as a control group. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: The primary outcome measure was a pain score for the proportion of time neonates displayed facial grimacing (brow bulge) during different phases of the procedure (skin preparation, needle puncture, and recovery). In randomized neonates, safety assessments included blood pressure, ventilatory support, and local skin reactions. RESULTS: Compared with no treatment, pain scores were lower in the morphine and tetracaine-morphine groups during skin preparation (mean difference, -0.22; 95% confidence interval [CI], -0.4 to -0.04; P = .02 and -0.29; 95% CI, -0.49 to -0.09; P = .01, respectively), and needle puncture (mean difference, -0.35; 95% CI, -0.57 to -0.13; P = .003 and -0.47; 95% CI, -0.71 to -0.24; P<.001, respectively), but pain scores did not differ statistically for tetracaine alone vs no treatment. Pain scores were lower for morphine and tetracaine-morphine vs tetracaine during the skin preparation phase and for tetracaine-morphine vs tetracaine during needle puncture. Compared with neonates without morphine, morphine-treated neonates required larger increases in ventilation rate in the first 12 hours (mean difference, 3.9/min; 95% CI, 1.3-6.5/min; P = .003). Local skin reactions occurred in 30% of neonates given tetracaine vs 0% for morphine (risk difference, 0.30; 95% CI, 0.19-0.41; P<.001). CONCLUSION: In this study of ventilated neonates undergoing central line placement, morphine and tetracaine plus morphine provided superior analgesia to tetracaine; however, morphine caused respiratory depression and tetracaine caused erythema.Clinical Trials Registration ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT00213200.

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 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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.402
Threshold uncertainty score0.426

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
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 head0.012
GPT teacher head0.258
Teacher spread0.246 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
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

Citations82
Published2006
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJAMASame topicPediatric Pain Management TechniquesFrench-language works237,207