A systematic review of clinical practice guidelines for the assessment and management of pain in neonates
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This systematic review provides a content analysis of the specific recommendations provided within existing clinical practice guidelines for the assessment and management of procedural pain in neonates. A structured search was completed in November 2021 in MEDLINE, Embase, and CINAHL to identify relevant clinical practice guidelines. Clinical practice guidelines were quality assessed using the Appraisal of Guidelines for Research and Evaluation II Instrument. 20 clinical practice guidelines were included. Recommendations and evidence provided within the guidelines for the assessment and management of procedural pain in neonates was variable. Improvements are required in relation to the vagueness of recommendations and inconsistencies. Translating evidence into practice is a complicated process that requires behavioural change amongst healthcare professionals. The Evidence-Based Practice for Improving Quality an adaptable multifaceted intervention can be implemented to change behaviour and reduce the evidence to practice gap.
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 | 0.023 | 0.112 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.007 | 0.006 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.022 | 0.020 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 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".