Comparison of Pain During Two Methods of Urine Collection in Preterm Infants
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Suprapubic aspiration (SPA) and urine catheterization (UC) are performed frequently in preterm neonates to rule out urinary tract infection; however, a comparison of the pain caused by both procedures has not been made previously. OBJECTIVE: To compare pain responses in preterm infants who are undergoing urine collection by using SPA versus UC. METHODS: Prospective, single-blind, randomized clinical trial was conducted in 2 NICUs. Preterm infants who required urine samples for microbiologic analysis were randomly assigned to undergo either SPA or UC. The infants' facial and physiologic responses were videotaped during the procedure and later scored by a research assistant who was blind to the method of urine collection. The primary outcome measure was facial-grimacing during the procedure, which was assessed by measuring the percentage of time the infants displayed brow-bulging. Secondary outcomes included changes in heart rate (beats per minute), oxygen saturation (%), and procedural success rate. RESULTS: Forty-eight preterm infants participated. Characteristics did not differ (P > .05) between groups. The mean (SD) percent brow-bulging score was higher in the SPA group than in the UC group (67% [34] vs 42% [38]; P = .02). Heart rate and oxygen saturation did not differ (P = .50 and .74, respectively). The procedure-success rate, although lower in the SPA group, was not statistically different (60% vs 78%; P = .17). CONCLUSIONS: SPA was more painful than UC, as assessed by brow-bulging, and had a tendency to be associated with a higher rate of procedure failure. These findings should be taken into consideration when choosing between these 2 procedures for preterm infants who undergo urine sampling.
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 | 0.006 | 0.011 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| 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".