Cold Vibration (Buzzy) Versus Anesthetic Patch (EMLA) for Pain Prevention During Cannulation in Children
Bibliographic record
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: The purpose of this study was to assess differences in observed pain-related behaviors during cannulation between a device combining cold and vibration (Buzzy) and the standard care (EMLA patch). METHODS: Patients 18 months to 6 years old, requiring venous access in a pediatric emergency department, received either the Buzzy device or the EMLA patch. Predefined week randomization ensured equal allocation to the 2 intervention groups. Pain during cannulation was measured using the Children's Hospital of Eastern Ontario Pain Scale. Parent and nurse reports, cannulation success, and venous access times were also assessed. RESULTS: In total, 607 included patients were randomized into the Buzzy group (n = 302) or the EMLA group (n = 305). Observed pain-related behaviors scores, parent-assessed pain scores, and nurse-reported pain ratings were higher with Buzzy. CONCLUSIONS: Pain relief by a combination of cold and vibration during cannulation is not as effective as the standard-care method in children 18 months to 6 years old.
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 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 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) | 0.002 | 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".