Sucrose and non-nutritive sucking for the relief of pain in screening for retinopathy of prematurity: a randomised controlled trial
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Screening is necessary for infants at risk of retinopathy of prematurity. Despite local anaesthetic drops, infants find eye examinations distressing, displaying behavioural and physiological changes indicating acute pain. Oral sucrose and non-nutritive sucking reduce pain responses associated with invasive procedures. OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the use of oral sucrose and/or pacifier for reducing pain responses during eye examinations. METHODS: Forty infants <32 weeks gestation or <1500 g birth weight, in two neonatal units, were randomised to one of four interventions administered two minutes before their first screening examination: 1 ml sterile water as placebo (group 1, n = 10), 1 ml 33% sucrose solution (group 2, n = 10), 1 ml sterile water with pacifier (group 3, n = 9), or 1 ml 33% sucrose solution with pacifier (group 4, n = 11). Examinations were videotaped. Two observers, blind to the intervention, assessed recordings. Pain responses were scored using the premature infant pain profile (PIPP). RESULTS: The groups were similar in gestation, birth weight, and age at examination. Mean PIPP scores were 15.3, 14.3, 12.3, and 12.1 for groups 1, 2, 3, and 4 respectively. Analysis of variance showed a significant difference in PIPP score between groups (p = 0.023). Infants randomised to pacifiers scored lower than those without pacifiers (p = 0.003). There was no difference between groups receiving sucrose and those receiving water (p = 0.321). CONCLUSIONS: Non-nutritive sucking reduced distress responses in infants undergoing screening for retinopathy of prematurity. The difference in response was large enough to be detected by a validated assessment tool. No synergistic effect of sucrose and pacifier was apparent in this group.
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 | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.006 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.009 | 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".