MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2132581781 · doi:10.5539/gjhs.v6n4p278

The Effect of Facilitated Tucking during Endotracheal Suctioning on Procedural Pain in Preterm Neonates: A Randomized Controlled Crossover Study

2014· article· en· W2132581781 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Mona Alinejad-Naeini, Parisa Mohagheghi, Hamid Peyrovi, Abbas Mehran

Bibliographic record

VenueGlobal Journal of Health Science · 2014
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicPediatric Pain Management Techniques
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersTehran University of Medical Sciences and Health Services
KeywordsMedicineNeonatal intensive care unitGestational ageCrossover studyAnesthesiaRandomized controlled trialIntensive careEndotracheal tubePain assessmentPediatricsIntubationPregnancyPain managementSurgeryIntensive care medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Premature infants not only feel and understand the pain, but also respond more intensively compared with term infants. Non-pharmacological methods of pain control are suitable to relieve pain in painful procedures. The facilitated tucking position is considered as a non-pharmacological method of pain control in infants; however, its impact on frequent and repeated procedural pain such as endotracheal suctioning remains to be studied. OBJECTIVES: This paper is the report of a study that examined the impact of facilitated tucking position on behavioral pain during suctioning in premature neonates. DESIGN: This was a clinical trial study with a crossover design. SETTINGS: The study was conducted in a level II Neonatal Intensive Care Unit, located in a teaching hospital, affiliated to Tehran University of Medical Sciences, Tehran, Iran. PARTICIPANTS: Thirty four infants were enrolled in this study based on the following inclusion criteria: age between 29 to 37 weeks of gestational age, birth weight 1200 grams or more, having an endotracheal tube, no congenital anomalies, no seizures diagnosis, no chest tubes, no intracranial hemorrhage higher than degree II, not receiving opiates and sedatives four hours before intervention and not receiving any painful procedure at least half an hour before the intervention. METHODS: The samples were randomly received a sequence of suctioning with/without or suctioning without/with facilitated tucking. Preterm Infant Pain Profile (PIPP) was used to collect the data. SPSS version 16.0 for Windows (SPSS Inc., Chicago, IL, USA) was used for statistical analysis. RESULTS: While 38.2% of infants experienced severe pain during suctioning without intervention, only 8.8% of them experienced severe pain during suctioning with intervention. The results of the paired t-test show that there is a statistically significant difference in the mean scores of pain between non-intervention and intervention cases (p < 0.001), and the mean pain score substantially reduced in cases with intervention. CONCLUSIONS: Given the multiplicity of endotracheal suctioning frequency and the impossibility of frequent use of pharmacological methods of pain relief, the facilitated tucking position can be used as a safe non-pharmacological method for procedural pain management.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.004
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.004
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Randomized trial · Consensus signal: Randomized trial
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.005
Threshold uncertainty score0.020

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0050.002
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0020.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.000

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 head0.008
GPT teacher head0.321
Teacher spread0.313 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designRandomized trial
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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

Citations62
Published2014
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueGlobal Journal of Health ScienceSame topicPediatric Pain Management TechniquesFrench-language works237,207