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
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.
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 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 0.001 |
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".