Reduced Infant Response to a Routine Care Procedure After Sucrose Analgesia
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: Sucrose has analgesic and calming effects in newborns. To date, it is not known whether the beneficial effects extend to caregiving procedures that are performed after painful procedures. Our objective was to determine the effect of sucrose analgesia for procedural pain on infant pain responses during a subsequent caregiving procedure. PATIENTS AND METHODS: We conducted a double-blind, randomized, controlled trial. Healthy neonates within 2 strata (normal infants and infants of diabetic mothers) were randomly assigned to a sucrose or placebo water group before all needle procedures after birth. Pain response during a diaper change performed after venipuncture for the newborn screening test was determined by using a validated multidimensional measure, the Premature Infant Pain Profile. RESULTS: The study was conducted between September 15, 2003, and July 27, 2004. Altogether, 412 parents were approached; 263 consented. Twenty-three infants were not assigned, leaving 240 for participation (n = 120 per group), with an equal number in each infant strata. Of those, 186 (78%) completed the study. There were no significant differences in birth characteristics between groups. During diaper change, sucrose-treated infants had lower pain scores than placebo-treated infants. The relative risk of having pain, defined as a Premature Infant Pain Profile score of >/=6, was 0.64 with sucrose compared with placebo. CONCLUSIONS: This study demonstrates that when used to manage pain, sucrose reduces the pain response to a subsequent routine caregiving procedure. Therefore, the benefits of sucrose analgesia extend beyond the painful event to other aversive and potentially painful 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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
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 teacher head, 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".