The Effect of Extended Injection of Subcutaneous Heparin on Pain Intensity and Bruising Incidence
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Reducing patients' pain is one of the main goals of providing clinical services, which requires nursing skill. As a simple technique, increasing the duration of subcutaneous heparin injection may affect the intensity of pain and bruising. OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to assess the effect of increasing the heparin injection time on pain intensity and bruising associated with subcutaneous injection. METHODS: The present quasi-experimental study consisted of 86 patients, admitted to our hospital, who were treated with subcutaneous heparin injection. A McGill pain intensity questionnaire was used to measure pain severity in a purposive sampling. All of the subjects received subcutaneous heparin twice for 10 seconds. They also were injected twice with heparin infusion, although it was for 30 seconds this time. The interval between the two injections was 24 h, and the intensity of the pain was measured after each injection. The Pearson correlation coefficient was measured, and analysis of variance (ANOVA) and the t-test were used to analyze the data. RESULTS: Eighty patients received heparin. The body mass indexes were reported as 52 (60%) and 34 (40%) for subjects within the age range of 18.5-24.9 and 25-29.9, respectively. Regarding the mean of pain intensity, there was a significant difference between the 10 and 30 s injections (p < 0.05). Additionally, there was a significant difference in bruising rates between the two methods 48 and 72 h after injection (p < 0.05). The ANOVA test showed a significant association between gender and bruising (p = 0.001). CONCLUSION: According to the results, by elevating the duration of heparin injection, the severity of pain was reduced, and, therefore, the patients felt more comfortable. TRIAL REGISTRATION: The trial was registered at the Thai Clinical Trials Registry (TCTR) with the TCTR identification of TCTR20160221001. FUNDING: This research was supported by the research cluster grant (88186-25/01/89) from Mashhad University of Medical Sciences, Mashhad, Iran. The authors received no financial support for the authorship and/or publication of this article.
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 | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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) | 0.002 | 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".