Pain in Hospitalized Pediatric Patients: How Are We Doing?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this study was to provide a baseline description of the prevalence of pain and pain management strategies in a pediatric hospital and to compare the prevalence of pain in this hospital to that in published reports in the literature. METHODS: Two hundred thirty-seven children ranging in age from 10 days to 17 years and 223 parents participated in an 8-hour survey on 5 inpatient units. Information about pain intensity and pain affect was collected from the children older than 6 years of age and from parents of those who were younger at 4 2-hour intervals. Information about procedural pain was collected from children, parents, and health care professionals over this 8-hour period. The type and amount of analgesia were also noted. RESULTS: More than 20% of the children had clinically significant pain at each of the 2-hour intervals, and 7 had pain scores of 5/10 or greater for the majority of the study day. At least 50% of the children were found to be pain-free during the 4 intervals, and there was a high level of agreement between parents and children's pain-intensity ratings. One hundred fifty-seven children had medication ordered and 80 children had no analgesia ordered. There was no significant correlation between characteristics of the patients and amounts or types of medication given. No analgesia was administered via intramuscular or subcutaneous injection. DISCUSSION: Although these results are encouraging in that a significant portion of the children were pain-free during the study day, the number of children who had clinically significant pain was too high. The results of this study compare with others in that a significant number of children were inadequately treated for pain. Clinical implications are discussed.
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 | 0.029 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
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.
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".