Effect of magnetic auricular acupuncture on pain during ophthalmic examination of the newborn: a multicenter, triple-blinded, randomized controlled study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: Newborn eye examination is a painful procedure. Untreated pain experiences in infants have both short-term and long-term consequences, and pain control is essential. Unfortunately, non-pharmacological pain strategies are usually ineffective for complex and protracted procedures, whereas many pharmacologic agents have adverse effects. Magnetic auricular acupuncture (MAA) is a new method of pain relief that is potentially safe and effective. The objective of this study was to conduct a large definitive triple blinded randomized controlled trial of MAA for reducing pain in neonates undergoing ophthalmic examination. The trial was registered at the Chinese Clinical Trial Registry (ID number ChiCTR1900027474) on November 14, 2019. METHODS: This was a multi-center randomized controlled trial conducted at 16 tertiary hospitals in the People's Republic of China. Infants were eligible for participation if they were born at 26 to 42 weeks gestational age (GA) and admitted to participating NICUs during the study enrollment period, and scheduled to receive an eye examination for the first time at <44 weeks' corrected GA. Written informed consent was obtained from parents. Infants who were critically ill, dying or receiving sedatives were excluded. Infants randomized to the intervention (MAA) group received magnetic stickers applied prior to the ophthalmic procedure. Control group infants received placebo stickers with the magnets removed. We compared the primary outcome of Premature Infant Pain Profile (PIPP) score during the procedure between the two groups. RESULTS: A total of 408 patients were randomized, but 14 patients in each of the placebo and intervention groups did not receive ophthalmic examination; leaving 190 patients in control group and 190 in intervention group. Infant characteristics were similar in the two groups, mean PIPP scores during eye exam were significantly lower in the intervention group compared to the control group (median (IQR): 10.00 (5.00,13.00) v 12.00 (7.00,14.00), p = 0.038). CONCLUSIONS: MAA may offer an alternative or adjunct to current non-pharmacologic and pharmacologic interventions to alleviate neonatal pain. Future studies should assess combinations of pain interventions and long term outcomes.
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 | 0.009 | 0.019 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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 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".