Measuring injection-site pain associated with vaccine administration in adults: a randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled clinical trial.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Pain at the injection site is one of the most commonly-reported local reactions associated with administration of a vaccine, but it has not been quantified by a validated instrument for pain measurement. We conducted a randomised, double-blind clinical trial to evaluate the measurement characteristics of two commonly-used pain questionnaires, the McGill Present Pain Intensity (PPI) and the Brief Pain Inventory (BPI) Current Pain Question, in the assessment of intramuscular injection-site pain associated with vaccine administration. The PPI measures pain on a scale of 0 (no pain) to 5 (excruciating pain) and the BPI measures pain on a scale of 0 (no pain) to 10 (pain as bad as you can imagine). METHODS: Two hundred healthy adults were randomised to one of the five regimens: tetanus and diphtheria toxoids adsorbed (Td), aluminum hydroxide adjuvant (alum), physiological saline, or one of the two licensed hepatitis A vaccines, VAQTA, or HAVRIX. Pain assessment was made at eight time-points over a 2-day period after injection. RESULTS: The differences in the time-averaged pain (+/- standard deviation) on the PPI were statistically significant between Td (0.58+/-0.59) and either saline (0.14+/-0.23) (p < 0.005) or alum (0.22+/-0.35) (p < 0.01). Reported time-averaged pain were significantly lower for VAQTA than HAVRIX (p = 0.028). Similar differences were observed for the BPI. CONCLUSIONS: Both instruments have sufficient discriminative validity to distinguish between different levels of injection-site pain in adults.
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 | 0.004 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.005 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.011 | 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".