Evaluation of a New Lancet Device (BD QuikHeel) on Pain Response and Success of Procedure in Term Neonates
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To evaluate 2 heel lancet devices in terms of pain response and success of the procedure in neonates undergoing the newborn screening test. DESIGN: Randomized trial. SETTING: Tenth level, mother-and-baby unit of a university-affiliated hospital. Patients Eighty term neonates. INTERVENTIONS: Heel lance using either the BD Safety-Flow lancet (SF) or the BD QuikHeel lancet (QH). MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Facial grimacing score (brow bulge, eye squeezed shut, and nasolabial furrow [range, 0%-100%]), cry duration, duration of the procedure, and number of punctures required to collect the blood. RESULTS: Forty neonates were enrolled in each group. There were no differences in the demographic characteristics between groups. During the first skin puncture, the median score (25th-75th percentile) for facial grimacing was 100% (76%-100%) for the SF compared with 73% (42%-100%) for the QH (P =.02). For cry duration, it was 6 seconds (0-9 seconds) vs 0 seconds (0-6 seconds), respectively (P =.01). Pain scores during blood collection (ie, squeezing) did not differ between groups (P =.09). The procedure took less time to perform in the QH group (140 seconds [90-236 seconds]) than in the SF group (215 seconds [137-314 seconds]) (P =.02). The total crying time was shorter in the QH group (90 seconds [66-196 seconds] vs 148 seconds [92-267 seconds]; P =.03). Thirty-six (90%) of the neonates in the QH group received 1 puncture for blood collection compared with 21 (53%) in the SF group (P<.001). CONCLUSION: The BD QuikHeel lancet is superior to the BD Safety-Flow lancet for blood collection in term neonates undergoing the newborn screening test.
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 | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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 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".