The effectiveness of repeated sucrose for procedural pain in neonates in a longitudinal observational study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Goal To determine the analgesic effectiveness of repeated sucrose administration for skin-breaking (SB) procedures over the Neonatal Intensive Care Unit (NICU) hospitalization of preterm infants. Methods Longitudinal observational study, conducted in four level III Canadian NICUs. Eligible infants were <32 weeks gestational age at birth, and <10 days of life at enrollment. Infants received 24% sucrose (0.12 ml) prior to all painful procedures. The Premature Infant Pain Profile – Revised (PIPP-R) was used at 30 and 60 seconds after a medically-required SB procedure as soon as possible after enrollment and weekly up to three additional times for scheduled procedures. Results 172 infants (57.3% male, gestational age 28.35 (±2.31) weeks) were included. The mean 30 s PIPP-R scores were 6.11 (±3.68), 5.76 (±3.41), 6.48 (±3.67), and 6.81 (±3.69) respectively; there were no statistically significant interactions of study site by time (p = 0.31) or over time (p = 0.15). At 60 s, mean PIPP-R scores were 6.05 (±4.09), 5.74 (±3.67), 6.19 (±3.7), and 5.99 (±3.76) respectively; there were no study site by time interactions (p = 0.14) or differences over time (p = 0.52). There was a statistically significant site difference in the effectiveness of sucrose at 30 and 60 seconds (p < 0.01). Conclusions Consistently low PIPP-R scores following a skin-breaking procedure indicated that the analgesic effectiveness of the minimal dose of sucrose was sustained over time in the NICU. Further research is required to determine the optimal combination of sucrose and other pain management strategies to improve clinical practice and the impact of consistent use of repeated use of sucrose on neurodevelopment.
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 | 0.003 | 0.008 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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 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".