MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2737273266 · doi:10.1186/s12887-017-0914-9

Individual contextual factors in the validation of the Bernese pain scale for neonates: protocol for a prospective observational study

2017· article· en· W2737273266 on OpenAlexaff
Eva Cignacco, Karin Schenk, Bonnie Stevens, Liliane Stoffel, Dirk Bassler, Sven Schulzke, Mathias Nelle

Bibliographic record

VenueBMC Pediatrics · 2017
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicPediatric Pain Management Techniques
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Toronto
FundersUniversity of BernUniversität BaselSchweizerischer Nationalfonds zur Förderung der Wissenschaftlichen ForschungNational Science Foundation
KeywordsMedicineObservational studyHeelPain scaleGestational ageProspective cohort studyIntensive carePain assessmentPhysical therapyPediatricsIntensive care medicinePregnancyPain managementSurgery

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: The Bernese Pain Scale for Neonates (BPSN) is a multidimensional pain assessment tool that is already widely used in clinical settings in the German speaking areas of Europe. Recent findings indicate that pain responses in preterm neonates are influenced by individual contextual factors, such as gestational age (GA), gender and the number of painful procedures experienced. Currently, the BPSN does not consider individual contextual factors. Therefore, the aim of this study is the validation of the BPSN using a large sample of neonates with different GAs. Furthermore, the influence of individual contextual factors on the variability in pain reactions across GA groups will be explored. The results will be used for a modification of the BPSN to account for individual contextual factors in future clinical pain assessment in neonates. METHODS AND DESIGN: This prospective multisite validation study with a repeated measures design will take place in three university hospital neonatal intensive care units (NICUs) in Switzerland (Bern, Basel and Zurich). To examine the impact of GA on pain responses and their variability, the infants will be stratified into six GA groups ranging from 24 0/7 to 42 0/7. Among preterm infants, 2-5 routine capillary heel sticks within the first 14 days of life, and among full-term infants, two heel sticks during the first days of life will be documented. For each heel stick, measurements will be video recorded for each of three phases: baseline, heel stick, and recovery. The infants' pain responses will be rated according to the BPSN by five nurses who are blinded as to the number of each heel stick and as to the measurement phases. Individual contextual factors of interest will be extracted from patient charts. DISCUSSION: Understanding and considering the influence of individual contextual factors on pain responses in a revised version of the BPSN will help the clinical staff to more appropriately assess pain in neonates, particularly preterm neonates hospitalized in NICUs. Pain assessment is a first step toward appropriate and efficient pain management, which itself is an important factor in later motor and cognitive development in this vulnerable patient population. TRIAL REGISTRATION: The study is registered in the database of Clinical Trial gov. Study ID-number: NCT 02749461 . Registration date: 12 April 2016.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.004
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.007
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.057
Threshold uncertainty score0.785

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.007
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.165
GPT teacher head0.399
Teacher spread0.234 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations14
Published2017
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueBMC PediatricsSame topicPediatric Pain Management TechniquesFrench-language works237,207