Consistent Management of Repeated Procedural Pain With Sucrose in Preterm Neonates: Is It Effective and Safe for Repeated Use Over Time?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: Preterm neonates undergo numerous painful procedures in the neonatal intensive care unit (NICU). Sucrose, with and without pacifiers, is effective and safe for relieving pain from single painful events. However, repeated use of sucrose for multiple painful procedures has not been adequately evaluated. The study objectives were to: 1) determine the efficacy and safety of consistent management of repeated procedural pain with sucrose; and 2) explore the impact of consistent pain management on clinical outcomes and neurobiological risk status. METHODS: Sixty-six preterm infants were randomized to receive standard care (positioning and swaddling; n = 21), sterile water plus pacifier (n = 23), or 24% sucrose plus pacifier (n = 22) prior to all painful procedures in the NICU during the first 28 days of life. Also, at a routine heel lance at 7, 14, 21, and 28 days of life, data were collected to determine efficacy and immediate and long-term adverse events. Data on clinical outcomes and neurobiological risk status were collected at 28 days or NICU discharge. RESULTS: There was no intervention by time interaction (P = 0.60). There was a significant main effect of intervention (P = 0.03) between the sucrose plus pacifier group, and the standard care group (P = 0.01), but there was no main effect of time (P = 0.72). No group differences existed for adverse events, clinical outcomes, or neurobiological risk status. DISCUSSION: Consistent management of painful procedures with sucrose plus pacifier was effective and safe for preterm neonates during their stay in the NICU. Further exploration of consistent pain management with sucrose on clinical, developmental, and neurobiological outcomes is required.
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 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".