The Effect of Endotracheal Suctioning Using the Four-handed Care on Physiological Criteria and Behavioral Responses of the Preterm Infants: Randomized Crossover Clinical Trial
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Introduction: Endotracheal suctioning is one of the procedures that can cause pain and stress for infants admitted to neonatal intensive care units (NICUs). Pain and stress can be manifested with physiological and behavioral responses. This study is a crossover randomized clinical trial design that aimed to investigate the effect of endotracheal suctioning, using four-handed care on the physiological criteria and behavioral responses of preterm infants. Methods: In this study, 40 infants were randomly divided into two groups of 20, one group was first suctioned by the routine method (two hands) and then with the four-handed method. The other group was first suctioned by the four-handed method and then with the routine one. The ALPS-Neo (Astrid Lindgren Children’s Hospital Pain Scale Neonates) was used to evaluate pain and stress in infants. One camera recorded facial expressions and body movements, and physiological data were recorded from the monitor simultaneously. Results: Repeated measures analysis of variance (ANOVA) showed no statistically significant difference in changes in arterial saturation, heart rate and behavioral response scores between the two methods, but there was a significant difference in the mean heart rate of infants during and two minutes after suctioning in four-handed method using independent t test. Data were analyzed using SPSS version 13. Conclusion: Four-handed suctioning method can prevent an increase in the heart rate during and two minutes after suctioning, but it does not seem to affect behavioral responses and oxygen saturation of the infants. Since one of the symptoms of pain and stress in infants is the change of vital signs, especially the heart rate, we recommend four-handed method for suctioning of endotracheal tube.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.006 | 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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".