Vaccine-related pain: randomised controlled trial of two injection techniques
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To compare acute pain response during immunisation in infants using a slow standard of care injection technique versus a rapid pragmatic technique. DESIGN: Randomised controlled trial. SETTING: Single-centre, urban paediatric primary care practice. SUBJECTS: Healthy infants 4-6 months of age receiving their routine DPTaP-Hib immunisation. INTERVENTIONS: Standard of care group: slow aspiration prior to injection, slow injection and slow withdrawal. Pragmatic group: no aspiration, rapid injection and rapid withdrawal. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Immediate infant pain measured by the Modified Behavior Pain Scale (MBPS), crying and parent/paediatrician visual analogue scale (VAS). RESULTS: 113 infants participated; there were no observed differences in age, birth order or prior analgesic use. Mean MBPS scores (95% confidence interval (CI)) were higher (p<0.001) for the standard group compared to the pragmatic group, 5.6 (5 to 6.3) vs 3.3 (2.6 to 3.9). The standard group was more likely to cry, 47/57 (82%) vs 24/56 (43%), to cry longer, median (interquartile range (IQR)) 14.7 s (8.7-35.6) vs 0 s (0-11.30), and to take longer to have the vaccine injected, median (IQR) 8.8 s (7.9-10.3) vs 0.9 s (0.8-1.1), p<0.001 for all comparisons. The median (IQR) VAS scores by parents and paediatricians were higher for the standard group: VAS parent, 3.5 (1.6-5.5) vs 1.9 (0.1-3.1) and VAS paediatrician, 2.8 (2.0-5.1) vs 1.4 (0.2-2.4). There were no adverse events. CONCLUSION: Immunisation using a pragmatic rapid injection technique is less painful than a slow standard of care technique and should be recommended for routine intramuscular immunisations.
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 | 0.006 | 0.010 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.009 | 0.004 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.005 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.014 | 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".