MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2945773046 · doi:10.1016/j.pedneo.2019.05.003

What happened to the principle of equipoise in the planning, designing and conducting of placebo-controlled trials for neonatal procedural pain?

2019· letter· en· W2945773046 on OpenAlex
Mariana Bueno, Denise Harrison

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenuePediatrics & Neonatology · 2019
Typeletter
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicPediatric Pain Management Techniques
Canadian institutionsChildren's Hospital of Eastern OntarioUniversity of OttawaHospital for Sick Children
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineHeelPlaceboRandomized controlled trialPsychological interventionIntervention (counseling)AnesthesiaPhysical therapySurgeryAlternative medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

We refer to the recent study published by Hsieh and colleagues1Hsieh K.H. Chen S.J. Tsao P.C. Wang C.C. Huang C.F. Lin C.M. et al.The analgesic effect of non-pharmacological interventions to reduce procedural pain in preterm neonates.Pediatr Neonatol. 2018; 59: 71-76Abstract Full Text Full Text PDF PubMed Scopus (17) Google Scholar comparing the effects of 10% glucose and expressed breast milk (EBM) on pain scores during heel lance in preterm infants. The enrolled infants underwent four heel lance procedures while receiving EBM, 10% glucose, water, or no intervention. Results demonstrated significantly lower pain scores for the EBM and 10% glucose groups than for the water and no intervention groups. However, all infants obviously experienced moderate pain (e.g., Premature Infant Pain Profile scores higher than 6) during the first 30 s after heel lance irrespective of the allocated group. Nevertheless, the authors concluded that EBM and 10% glucose were effective and safe. Unfortunately, infants included in this study for all the four heel lance procedures were not administered any evidence-based pain treatments that have been already demonstrated to be effective in reducing pain. Extensive research conducted over the past three decades has clearly shown that sweet solutions, if sufficiently sweet, are effective in reducing pain during heel lance in newborns. A systematic review of 35 trials reported that 20%–30% glucose solution reduced pain during painful procedures.2Bueno M. Yamada J. Harrison D. Khan S. Ohlsson A. Adams-Webber T. et al.A systematic review and meta-analyses of non sucrose sweet solutions for pain relief in neonates.Pain Res Manag. 2013; 18: 153-156Crossref PubMed Scopus (97) Google Scholar However, lower concentrations, including 10% glucose, were found to be ineffective across numerous trials.2Bueno M. Yamada J. Harrison D. Khan S. Ohlsson A. Adams-Webber T. et al.A systematic review and meta-analyses of non sucrose sweet solutions for pain relief in neonates.Pain Res Manag. 2013; 18: 153-156Crossref PubMed Scopus (97) Google Scholar Analgesic effects are known to be dependent on sweet taste, which explains why higher concentrated solutions exert superior analgesic effects. Another systematic review of sweet solutions used for neonatal pain, published in Chinese databases, included 31 trials confirming the same results, i.e., small volumes of sweet solutions, as long as they are sufficiently sweet, reduce pain in infants.3Huang R.R. Xie R.H. Wen S.W. Chen S.L. She Q. Liu Y.N. et al.Sweet solutions for analgesia in neonates in China: a systematic review and meta-analysis.Can J Nurs Res. 2019; 51: 116-127Crossref PubMed Scopus (7) Google Scholar Finally, a systematic review of 168 studies showed that a state of equipoise has not existed in the analgesic effects of sweet tasting solutions for almost 20 years.4Harrison D. Larocque C. Bueno M. Stokes Y. Turner L. Hutton B. et al.Sweet solutions to reduce procedural pain in neonates: a meta-analysis.Pediatrics. 2017; 139 (pii: e20160955)Crossref Scopus (55) Google Scholar On the other hand, results of systematic reviews have consistently demonstrated limited efficacy of EBM for infant procedural pain relief.5Benoit B. Martin-Misener R. Latimer M. Campbell-Yeo M. Breast-feeding analgesia in infants: an update on the current state of evidence.J Perinat Neonatal Nurs. 2017; 31: 145-159Crossref PubMed Scopus (55) Google Scholar Breast milk contains 7% lactose, which is the least sweet tasting substance and may explain its poor analgesic effects when offered alone. Exposing infants to placebo, no intervention, or interventions already shown to be ineffective, including low concentrations of sweet solutions and EBM, in pain studies can be considered as unethical. Researchers must use the best evidence available to design their studies, and research ethics committees should not approve studies on infant procedural pain where best evidence is not the standard of care. What about parents? Parental consent is required for newborns to participate in research. However, are parents truly informed? Do they know that there is already strong evidence to support sweet solutions that are being tested in these studies? Furthermore, are they informed that there is strong evidence to support breastfeeding and skin–skin care, and that they could be advocating for these strategies for their newborns during painful procedures? Ongoing research should be informed by the best evidence available, including a state of uncertainty. Nevertheless, these principles of equipoise appear not to have been fully considered while conceptualizing and implementing the study of Hsieh and colleagues.1Hsieh K.H. Chen S.J. Tsao P.C. Wang C.C. Huang C.F. Lin C.M. et al.The analgesic effect of non-pharmacological interventions to reduce procedural pain in preterm neonates.Pediatr Neonatol. 2018; 59: 71-76Abstract Full Text Full Text PDF PubMed Scopus (17) Google Scholar Research should focus on implementing the best evidence available into clinical practice while continuing to explore improved methods to consistently reduce newborn pain. The authors have no conflicts of interest relevant to this article. The following is the Supplementary data to this article: Download .xml (.0 MB) Help with xml files Multimedia component 1

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.

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)0.020
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.022
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch, Meta-epidemiology (narrow)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Commentary · Consensus signal: Commentary
Teacher disagreement score0.161
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0200.022
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0030.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0010.001
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 head0.099
GPT teacher head0.364
Teacher spread0.265 · 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