An Integration of Vibration and Cold Relieves Venipuncture Pain in a Pediatric Emergency Department
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: A randomized controlled trial compared a reusable device combining cold and vibration to standard care for pediatric venous access pain relief. METHODS: Pediatric emergency department patients received either the cold vibration device placed 5 to 10 cm proximally throughout venipuncture or standard care control (primarily vapocoolant spray). Block randomization of patients with or without lidocaine cream already in place ensured equal allocation in both intervention groups. Pain was measured via self- and parent-report using the 0- to 10-point Faces Pain Scale-Revised and with coded videotaped observed behaviors. Venipuncture success, use of distraction, and access times were also assessed. RESULTS: Eighty-one 4- to 18-year-olds were randomized to the device (n = 41) or standard care (n = 40) (median age, 10.09 years; 95% confidence interval [95% CI], 8.91-10.89). Median patient-reported pain scores with the device were lower than with standard care (-2; 95% CI, -4 to 0), as were parent-assessed pain scores (-2; 95% CI, -4 to -2). Observed distress behaviors were more common with standard care (2; 95% CI, 1-3) than with the device (1; 95% CI, 0-2). Venipuncture success was more likely with the device (odds ratio, 3.05; 95% CI, 1.03-9.02). There were no device refusals. CONCLUSIONS: The combination of cold and vibration decreased venipuncture pain significantly more than standard care without compromising procedural success. A device incorporating these elements could overcome the common barriers to needle procedure pain control.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".