Oral sucrose and non‐nutritive sucking goes some way to reducing pain during retinopathy of prematurity eye examinations
Bibliographic record
Abstract
AIM: To evaluate the efficacy of oral sucrose combined with non-nutritive sucking for reducing pain associated with retinopathy of prematurity screening. METHODS: This was a randomised controlled study of 64 infants undergoing eye examination for retinopathy of prematurity screening. Topical anaesthetic (Proparacaine; Alcaine(®) drop 0.5%: ALCON CANADA Inc., Mississauga, Canada) was applied 30 sec before the eye examination in all infants. The infants in intervention group (Group 1, n = 32) received 0.5 mL/kg of 24% sucrose with a pacifier. The control group (Group 2, n = 32) received 0.5 mL/kg of sterile water with a pacifier. RESULTS: The groups had similar gestational ages (28.5 ± 2.8 weeks), mean birthweight (1304 ± 466 g) or corrected gestational age (35.4 ± 3.7 weeks) at examination. The intervention group had a significantly lower mean Premature Infant Pain Profile score during examination of the first eye, following insertion of the speculum (Group 1:13.7 ± 2.1 vs. Group 2:16.4 ± 1.8, p = 0.001). CONCLUSION: Although sucrose combined with non-nutritive sucking modestly reduces pain scores during eye examinations, there is need to further studies to explore significant pain relief for infants undergoing retinopathy of prematurity screening.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".