A Randomized Controlled Trial Evaluating the Efficacy of Oral Sucrose in Infants 1 to 3 Months Old Needing Intravenous Cannulation
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: The objective was to compare the efficacy of an oral sucrose versus placebo in reducing pain in infants 1 to 3 months of age during intravenous (IV) cannulation in the emergency department. METHODS: A randomized, double-blind, placebo clinical trial was conducted. Participants were randomly allocated to receive 2 mL of an oral 88% sucrose solution or 2 mL of a placebo solution orally. The outcome measure were mean difference in pain score at 1 minute post-IV cannulation assessed by the Face, Legs, Activity, Cry, and Consolability Pain Scale (FLACC) and the Neonatal Infant Pain Scale (NIPS), crying time, and variations in heart rate. RESULTS: Eighty-seven participants completed the study, 45 in the sucrose group and 42 in the placebo group. There was no statistical difference in variations in both the FLACC score (p = 0.49) and the NIPS score (p = 0.36) between the two groups as per the Mann-Whitney U-test. With the same test, median crying times following IV cannulation were statistically significantly different between both groups (17 seconds in the sucrose group vs. 41 seconds in the placebo group, p = 0.04). Mean changes in heart rate 1 minute after IV cannulation were similar in both groups (16 ± 4 beats/min for sucrose vs. 18 ± 4 beats/min for placebo, p = 0.74). Side effects were similar for both groups and no adverse events were reported. CONCLUSIONS: Administration of an oral sucrose solution in infants 1 to 3 months of age during IV cannulation did not lead to statistically significant changes in pain scores. However, the cry time was significantly reduced.
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.005 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.008 | 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".