Role of sucrose, pacifier and their combination as pain reliever among preterm neonates during painful procedures
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background/Objective: The role of sucrose and/or non-nutritive sucking (NNS) has been evaluated for relieving procedural pain in newborn infants with satisfactory results however there was a controversy regarding the synergestic effect of their combination.}Methods: This quasi-experimental study was conducted in the neonatal intensive care unit in Assiut University Children Hospital including 120 preterm neonates who were divided into 4 groups (20 neonates each). Control group received routine hospital care; sucrose group received oral sucrose solution (OS); pacifier group received pacifier; and last group received oral sucrose solution and pacifier during painful procedures. All were assessed regarding socio-demographic and clinical data in addition to application of Premature Infant Pain Profile (PIPP) scale to assess the levels of pain and mean pain scores pre and post-intervention.Results: The 4 groups were similar regarding soci-demographic and clinical data. The application of the OS and/or pacifier, led to significant improvement of the levels of pain and reduction of the mean score of pain among preterm neonates during painful procedures. In addition, combined pacifier and OS was superior to OS alone and comparable to pacifier alone regarding their effect on the reduction of pain level and mean score of pain.Conclusions: OS and pacifier are effective as pain reliever during painful procedures among preterm neonates. Combined OS and pacifier is superior to OS and pacifier alone.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".