The effect of vapocoolant spray on pain due to intravenous cannulation in children: a randomized controlled trial
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Established noninvasive pharmacologic means of alleviating pain and anxiety in children undergoing intravenous cannulation are time-consuming, and thus impractical for routine use in the emergency department. Vapocoolant sprays provide transient skin anesthesia within seconds of application. We compared the effect of a new vapocoolant spray to placebo on pain due to intravenous cannulation in children. METHODS: In this double-blind randomized controlled trial, which we conducted between June 1 and Sept. 12, 2006, 80 children aged 6-12 years received either vapocoolant spray or placebo before cannulation. Children rated their pain using a 100-mm colour visual analogue scale. Secondary outcomes included success rate on first attempt at cannulation and pain ratings by the children's parents, nurses and child life specialists. RESULTS: We found a modest but significant reduction in pain with the use of vapocoolant spray (mean difference 19 mm, 95% confidence interval [CI] 6-32 mm; p < 0.01). Cannulation on first attempt was more often successful with the use of vapocoolant spray (85.0%) than with placebo (62.5%) (mean difference 22.5%, 95% CI 3.2%-39.9%; p = 0.03). The number needed to treat to prevent 1 cannulation failure was 5 (95% CI 3-32). Parents (p = 0.04), nurses (p = 0.01) and child life specialists (p < 0.01) considered the children's pain to be reduced with the use of vapocoolant spray. INTERPRETATION: The vapocoolant spray in our study quickly and effectively reduced pain due to intravenous cannulation in children and improved the success rate of cannulation. It is an important option to reduce childhood procedural pain in emergency situations, especially when time precludes traditional interventions. (http://ClinicalTrials.gov trial register no. NCT00130650.).
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 | 0.005 | 0.008 |
| 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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 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".