Pain in Canadian NICUs
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: To determine the incidence of and factors predicting management strategies used for procedural pain in Canadian neonatal intensive care units and to determine whether the incidence of procedures and their management has changed since our 1997 study. PATIENTS: Five hundred eighty-two neonates who were hospitalized in any of the participating study centers were included. METHODS: A prospective observational study was conducted in 14 Canadian neonatal intensive care units (level III A and III B). Infants were followed for 1 week regarding all invasive procedures. Data were collected prospectively by unit staff using a checklist and verified by research assistants. RESULTS: A total of 3508 tissue damaging (mean=5.8, SD=15) and 14,085 (mean=25.6, SD=15) nontissue damaging procedures were recorded. Half of procedures (46% tissue damaging and 57% nontissue damaging) had no analgesic interventions. Opiates were used for 14.5% of tissue-damaging procedures and sweet taste was used for 14.3% of the tissue-damaging procedures. Factors predicting use of pharmacologic management of tissue-damaging procedures were being less ill at birth, receiving high frequency ventilatory support, and being transferred to the study center. Parental presence predicted use of sweet taste or nonpharmacologic analgesia for tissue-damaging procedures. Study site practices varied widely with 1 unit providing analgesia for 90% of tissue-damaging procedures. INTERPRETATION: Although the number of tissue-damaging procedures has decreased from 1997 and the use of analgesics has increased, the management of these procedures falls far below the recommended guidelines of the Canadian Pediatric Society. That 1 unit reached a high level of analgesic use suggests that it is possible to achieve this goal. That parental presence had a positive influence on comfort strategies supports offering encouragement and support for parents to remain with their infant during procedures.
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 | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".