Analgesic Effects of Sweet-Tasting Solutions for Infants: Current State of Equipoise
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: The goal was to review published studies of analgesic effects of sweet solutions, to ascertain areas with sufficient evidence of effectiveness and areas of uncertainty. METHODS: Databases searched included Medline, Embase, the Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature database, and PsycINFO, using the terms pain*, infant*, neonat*, newborn*, sucrose, glucose, and alternative sugars. Publications were sorted according to type, year, painful procedure studied, placebo/no-treatment groups, population studied, and country of publication. RESULTS: A total of 298 relevant unique publications involving human infants were identified; 125 (42%) were primary research studies, of which 116 (93%) were randomized controlled trials. Healthy preterm or term newborns were included in 82 studies (65%), and sick or very low birth weight infants were included in 22 (18%). Most studies included single episodes of painful procedures, with only 3 (2%) conducted over long periods. Procedures investigated most frequently were heel lance (49%), venipuncture (14%), and intramuscular injection (14%). Placebo or no-treatment groups were included in 111 studies (89%); in 103 (93%) of those studies, sweet solutions reduced behavioral responses, compared with placebo/ no treatment. CONCLUSION: Clinical equipoise relating to analgesic effects of sweet solutions no longer exists for single episodes of procedures for healthy preterm and term newborn infants. Uncertainties include outcomes after prolonged use of sweet solutions, concomitant use of other analgesics, and effectiveness beyond the newborn period. Future research should focus on addressing these knowledge and research gaps.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
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 teacher head, 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".