Efficacy and Safety of EMLA Cream for Pain Control Due to Venipuncture in Infants: A Meta-analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
CONTEXT: The eutectic mixture of lidocaine (EMLA) cream has been used to reduce the pain during venipuncture in infants. OBJECTIVE: To determine the efficacy and safety of EMLA in infants <3 months of age requiring venipuncture in comparison with nonpharmacological interventions in terms of pain reduction, change in physiologic variables, and methemoglobinemia. DATA SOURCES: Medline, Embase, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature, Web of Science, and gray literature were searched from inception to August 2017, without language restrictions. STUDY SELECTION: We selected randomized controlled trials in which researchers compared EMLA with nonpharmacological interventions. DATA EXTRACTION: Two reviewers independently performed abstract screening and full-text review, and extracted the data and assessed the risk of bias. RESULTS: Ten randomized controlled trials (907 infants) were included. EMLA revealed little or no effect in reduction of pain (standardized mean difference: 0.14; 95% confidence interval [CI]: −0.17 to 0.45; 6 trials, n = 742; moderate-quality evidence) when EMLA was compared with sucrose, breastfeeding, or placebo. In comparison with placebo, EMLA revealed a small-to-moderate effect on increasing methemoglobin levels (mean difference: 0.35; 95% CI: 0.04 to 0.66; 2 trials, n = 134; low-quality evidence). There was an increased risk of blanching of the skin in the EMLA group (relative risk: 2.63; 95% CI: 1.58 to 4.38; 2 trials, n = 123; I2 = 84%, very low–quality evidence). LIMITATIONS: Our results may not be applicable to older infants. CONCLUSIONS: EMLA reveals minimal benefits in terms of reduction of pain due to venipuncture procedure in comparison with placebo and no benefit in comparison with sucrose and/or breastfeeding. Moreover, it produced an elevation in methemoglobin levels and skin blanching.
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 | 0.015 | 0.031 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.021 | 0.049 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 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".