MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2807468223 · doi:10.1186/s12887-018-1026-x

The minimally effective dose of sucrose for procedural pain relief in neonates: a randomized controlled trial

2018· article· en· W2807468223 on OpenAlexafffundabout
Bonnie Stevens, Janet Yamada, Marsha Campbell‐Yeo, Sharyn Gibbins, Denise Harrison, Kimberley Dionne, Anna Taddio, Carol McNair, Andrew R. Willan, Marilyn Ballantyne, Kimberley Widger, Souraya Sidani, Carole A. Estabrooks, Anne Synnes, Janet E. Squires, Charles Victor, Shirine Riahi

Bibliographic record

VenueBMC Pediatrics · 2018
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicPediatric Pain Management Techniques
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British ColumbiaChildren's Hospital of Eastern OntarioHolland Bloorview Kids Rehabilitation HospitalInstitute for Clinical Evaluative SciencesUniversity of OttawaUniversity of AlbertaTrillium Health CentreDalhousie UniversityUniversity of TorontoSickKids FoundationOttawa HospitalToronto Metropolitan UniversityIzaak Walton Killam Health CentreHospital for Sick Children
FundersCanadian Institutes of Health Research
KeywordsMedicineGestational ageHeelNeonatal intensive care unitAdverse effectRandomized controlled trialAnesthesiaIncidence (geometry)Intensive carePediatricsSurgeryInternal medicinePregnancyIntensive care medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Orally administered sucrose is effective and safe in reducing pain intensity during single, tissue-damaging procedures in neonates, and is commonly recommended in neonatal pain guidelines. However, there is wide variability in sucrose doses examined in research, and more than a 20-fold variation across neonatal care settings. The aim of this study was to determine the minimally effective dose of 24% sucrose for reducing pain in hospitalized neonates undergoing a single skin-breaking heel lance procedure. METHODS: A total of 245 neonates from 4 Canadian tertiary neonatal intensive care units (NICUs), born between 24 and 42 weeks gestational age (GA), were prospectively randomized to receive one of three doses of 24% sucrose, plus non-nutritive sucking/pacifier, 2 min before a routine heel lance: 0.1 ml (Group 1; n = 81), 0.5 ml (Group 2; n = 81), or 1.0 ml (Group 3; n = 83). The primary outcome was pain intensity measured at 30 and 60 s following the heel lance, using the Premature Infant Pain Profile-Revised (PIPP-R). The secondary outcome was the incidence of adverse events. Analysis of covariance models, adjusting for GA and study site examined between group differences in pain intensity across intervention groups. RESULTS: There was no difference in mean pain intensity PIPP-R scores between treatment groups at 30 s (P = .97) and 60 s (P = .93); however, pain was not fully eliminated during the heel lance procedure. There were 5 reported adverse events among 5/245 (2.0%) neonates, with no significant differences in the proportion of events by sucrose dose (P = .62). All events resolved spontaneously without medical intervention. CONCLUSIONS: The minimally effective dose of 24% sucrose required to treat pain associated with a single heel lance in neonates was 0.1 ml. Further evaluation regarding the sustained effectiveness of this dose in reducing pain intensity in neonates for repeated painful procedures is warranted. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov : NCT02134873. Date: May 5, 2014 (retrospectively registered).

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.005
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Randomized trial · Consensus signal: Randomized trial
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.005
Threshold uncertainty score0.018

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.005
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0040.002
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0020.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0050.000

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 head0.010
GPT teacher head0.290
Teacher spread0.279 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designRandomized trial
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

Citations103
Published2018
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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