A randomized double‐blind, placebo‐controlled trial of the EMLA® patch for the reduction of pain associated with intramuscular injection in four to six‐year‐old children
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.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The effectiveness of a eutectic mixture lidocaine‐prilocaine topical anaesthetic cream (EMLA®) patch compared with a placebo patch in the reduction of pain associated with intramuscular immunization was evaluated. As part of the study, 161 children (aged 4‐6‐y) undergoing routine diphtheria, pertussis, tetanus and polio (DPTP) immunization in five urban and five rural private office settings were randomly assigned to an EMLA® patch ( n = 83) or a placebo patch control group ( n = 78). Pain measurements included: child's self‐report on a Faces Pain Scale; facial action on the Child Facial Coding System; the Children's Hospital of Eastern Ontario Pain Scale and parent and technician ratings on a Visual Analogue Scale. Parents also rated their own and their child's immunization‐related anxiety on a Visual Analogue Scale. The EMLA® patch group had significantly less pain on all four pain measures compared with the placebo group. Of the children in the placebo group, 43% had clinically significant pain, compared with 17% of children in the EMLA® patch group. No severe adverse symptoms occurred as a result of either EMLA® or placebo patch application. Conclusion : The EMLA® patch reduced immunization pain in 4 to 6‐y‐old children during needle injection.
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 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 | 0.008 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| 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) | 0.000 | 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 it