MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2764265818 · doi:10.1093/pch/9.suppl_a.44aa

82 Eliciting the Minimal Clinically Important Difference in the Pain Response from Parents of Newborn Infants and Nurses

2004· article· en· W2764265818 on OpenAlexaff
Vibhuti Shah, Moshe Ipp, Jaya Sam, TR Einarson, Anna Taddio

Bibliographic record

VenuePaediatrics & Child Health · 2004
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicPediatric Pain Management Techniques
Canadian institutionsSickKids FoundationHospital for Sick ChildrenUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsVenipunctureMedicineHeelInterquartile rangeMinimal clinically important differencePhysical therapyRandomized controlled trialAnesthesiaSurgery

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The minimal clinically important difference (MCID) is the smallest difference in an attribute of health that signifies an important effect on a patients well being. For studies of infant pain, a 20% reduction in pain is regarded by clinicians and researchers as the MCID when comparing two treatments. This value has not been empirically determined and does not consider consumers values. To determine parental and nurses views of the MCID when comparing heel lance and venipuncture techniques of blood collection in newborn infants. Prospective interview study of parents of newly born infants and nurses from the NICU and postnatal floor. Using a structured interview, parents and nurses were told that both techniques are associated with the same success rate for sample retrieval, adverse effects and quantity of pain but that the heel lance technique is the standard method used. Parents and nurses were asked to indicate their preferred technique. The strength of their preference was determined by identifying the probability of reduced pain they would require before considering the alternative technique. Then parents and nurses were informed that venipuncture is less painful than heel lance and their preference was again solicited. Finally, they were asked about their willingness to pay to have the less painful procedure for newborn infants. 94 parents and 98 nurses were interviewed. Heel lance was initially preferred by 86% of parents. Venipuncture was preferred by 79% of parents after a median MCID in pain of 13% (interquartile range, 6%–38%). 90% parents preferred venipuncture when told it was less painful and were willing to pay $25 ($10–$81) to decrease infant pain. Heel lance was initially preferred by 79% of nurses. Venipuncture was preferred by 68% of nurses after a median MCID in pain of 19% (interquartile range, 13%–38%). 85% preferred venipuncture when told it was less painful and were willing to pay $10 ($0–$50) to decrease infant pain. Parents and nurses prefer venipuncture to heel lance for blood collection in newborn infants if it is associated with a median decrease of 13% and 19% in infant pain scores respectively. Parents are willing to accept smaller MCID values compared to clinicians and researchers and are willing to pay more to alleviate their infant pain.

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)0.010
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 score0.029
Threshold uncertainty score0.802

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0100.007
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
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 head0.020
GPT teacher head0.325
Teacher spread0.305 · 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

Citations24
Published2004
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePaediatrics & Child HealthSame topicPediatric Pain Management TechniquesFrench-language works237,207