MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Venepuncture versus heel lance for blood sampling in term neonates

2011· review· en· W2101545095 on OpenAlexaff
Vibhuti Shah, Arne Ohlsson

Bibliographic record

VenueCochrane Database of Systematic Reviews · 2011
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicPediatric Pain Management Techniques
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsVenipunctureMedicineHeelRandomized controlled trialCochrane LibraryMeta-analysisRelative riskMEDLINEBlood samplingPhysical therapyConfidence intervalAnesthesiaSurgeryInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Heel lance has been the conventional method of blood sampling in neonates for screening tests. Neonates undergoing heel lance experience pain which cannot be completely alleviated. OBJECTIVES: To determine whether venepuncture or heel lance is less painful and more effective for blood sampling in term neonates. SEARCH STRATEGY: Randomized or quasi-randomised controlled trials comparing pain response to venepuncture versus heel lance were identified by searching the Cochrane Central Regsiter of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL, The Cochrane Library), MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL, and clinical trials registries in May 2011. SELECTION CRITERIA: Trials comparing pain response to venepuncture versus heel lance with or with out the use of a sweet tasting solution as a co-intervention in term neonates. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Outcomes included pain response to venepuncture versus heel lance with or without the use of a sweet tasting solution using validated pain measures, the need of repeat sampling and cry characteristics. Analyses included typical relative risk (RR), risk difference (RD), number needed to treat (NNT), weighted mean difference (WMD) and standardized mean difference (SMD) with their 95% confidence intervals (CI). Between study heterogeneity was reported including the I squared (I(2)) test. MAIN RESULTS: Six studies (n = 478) of variable quality were included. A composite outcome of Infant Pain Scale (NIPS), Neonatal Facial Action Coding System (NFCS) and/or Premature Infant Pain Profile (PIPP) score was reported in 288 infants, who did not receive a sweet tasting solution. Meta-analysis showed a significant reduction in the venepuncture versus the heel lance group (SMD -0.76, 95% CI -1.00 to -0.52; I(2) = 0%). When a sweet tasting solution was provided the SMD remained significant favouring the venepuncture group (SMD - 0.38, 95% CI -0.69 to -0.07). The typical RD for requiring more than one skin puncture for venepuncture versus heel lance (reported in 4 studies; n = 254) was -0.34 (95% CI -0.43 to -0.25; I(2) = 97%). The NNT to avoid one repeat skin puncture was 3 (95% CI 2 to 4). Cry characteristics favoured the venepuncture group but the differences were reduced by the provision of sweet tasting solutions prior to either procedure. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Venepuncture, when performed by a skilled phlebotomist, appears to be the method of choice for blood sampling in term neonates. The use of a sweet tasting solution further reduces the pain.Further well designed randomised controlled trials should be conducted in settings where several individuals perform the 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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.005
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.006
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Systematic review · Consensus signal: Systematic review
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.250
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0050.006
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0100.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.213
GPT teacher head0.424
Teacher spread0.211 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

Study designSystematic review
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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".

Quick stats

Citations148
Published2011
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCochrane Database of Systematic ReviewsSame topicPediatric Pain Management TechniquesFrench-language works237,207