Variability in Clinical Practice Guidelines for Sweetening Agents in Newborn Infants Undergoing Painful Procedures
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: Sweetening agents have been recommended in position statements and consensus documents for procedural pain management in neonates; however, it is not clear if this has resulted in widespread adoption in clinical practice. The objective of this study was to investigate unit-specific protocols for the use of sweetening agents. METHODS: Structured telephone survey with qualified personnel in special care (level II) nurseries and neonatal intensive care (level III) units across Canada. The frequency and pattern of recommended use of sweetening agents was documented. RESULTS: Eighty-six of 92 units (93.5%) participated. Sixty-four percent recommended sucrose and 2.3% recommended glucose for procedural pain management; 87.7% had a guideline. Sweetening agents were most commonly recommended for venipuncture/venous cannulation (91.2% for both), lumbar puncture (87.7%), and heel lance (82.5%). Dosing guidelines ranged from 0.05 mL of 24% sucrose solution to 3 mL of 25% sucrose solution. Sweeteners were not recommended for infants with necrotizing enterocolitis (77.2%) or those who were nil per os (75%). CONCLUSIONS: Sweetening agents were recommended for procedural pain management in two-thirds of special care nurseries and neonatal intensive care units across Canada with extensive variability in specific dosing guidelines. Audits of pain management practices should therefore account for unit-specific practice guidelines.
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 | 0.019 | 0.104 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".