Evidence map›Paper›PMID 31917874›Full record

Trial reportPediatrics international : official journal of the Japan Pediatric Society2020

Neonatal pain response to automatic lancet versus needle heel-prick blood sampling: A prospective randomized controlled clinical trial.

Tatenobu Goto, Takeshi Inoue, Chinami Kamiya, Hiroyuki Kawabe, Machiko Higuchi, Megumi Suyama, Tomoki Goto, Wakato Koide, Kanemasa Maki, Katsumi Ushijima and 2 more

Open access · hybridAbstract readRandomized Controlled Trial
In one paragraph

Trial report in Pediatrics international : official journal of the Japan Pediatric Society, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
6citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
2.3field-weighted citation impact, top 13% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

6 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 15 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Clinical effectiveness and safety of laser lancing for heel puncture in preterm infants: a randomized crossover non-inferiority trial.Journal of perinatology : official journal of the California Perinatal Association · 2026
    Article
  4. Article
  5. Review
  6. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

12 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

Tatenobu GotoDivision of Pediatrics, Yokkaichi Municipal Hospital, Yokkaichi, Mie, Japan.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-0846-7276
Takeshi InoueDivision of Pediatrics, Yokkaichi Municipal Hospital, Yokkaichi, Mie, Japan.
Chinami KamiyaDivision of Pediatrics, Yokkaichi Municipal Hospital, Yokkaichi, Mie, Japan.
Hiroyuki KawabeDivision of Pediatrics, Yokkaichi Municipal Hospital, Yokkaichi, Mie, Japan.
Machiko HiguchiDivision of Pediatrics, Yokkaichi Municipal Hospital, Yokkaichi, Mie, Japan.
Megumi SuyamaDivision of Pediatrics, Yokkaichi Municipal Hospital, Yokkaichi, Mie, Japan.
Tomoki GotoDivision of Pediatrics, Yokkaichi Municipal Hospital, Yokkaichi, Mie, Japan.
Wakato KoideDivision of Pediatrics, Yokkaichi Municipal Hospital, Yokkaichi, Mie, Japan.
Kanemasa MakiDivision of Pediatrics, Yokkaichi Municipal Hospital, Yokkaichi, Mie, Japan.
Katsumi UshijimaDivision of Pediatrics, Yokkaichi Municipal Hospital, Yokkaichi, Mie, Japan.
Kyoko BanDivision of Pediatrics, Yokkaichi Municipal Hospital, Yokkaichi, Mie, Japan.
Yasumasa YamadaDepartment of Perinatal and Neonatal Medicine, Aichi Medical University Sciences, Nagakute, Aichi, Japan.
Yokkaichi Municipal Hospital · JPAichi Medical University · JP

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundAutomatic lancets have been reported to be superior to manual lancets in terms of pain and treatment time. However, no studies have yet been published comparing automatic lancet and needle puncture heel-prick blood sampling. The objective of this study was to compare the pain response and efficiency between the automatic lancet and needle at the time of heel blood sampling. The design was a randomized controlled trial. The inclusion criteria for the participants were a birthweight of ≧1,500 g and a gestational age of ≧30 weeks.

methodsThe study examined a total of 105 neonates who were randomized into an automatic lancet group (n = 53) and a needle group (n = 52). The parameters measured included blood collection time, number of calf squeezes, duration of audible crying, and the Neonatal Infant Pain Scale (NIPS) score. The main outcome measure was audible crying duration.

resultsThe duration of audible crying was significantly shorter in the automatic lancet group when compared to the needle group (median 3 s, interquartile range (IQR) 0-33 s vs median 39 s, IQR 5-91.5 s, P = 0.0023). The NIPS score at the time of puncture was significantly lower in the automatic lancet group than in the needle group (median 1, IQR 0-5 vs median 5, IQR 3-6, P = 0.0060). There was no significant difference in the blood collection time and the number of calf squeezes between the two groups. The automatic lancet was found to be less painful than the needle puncture in neonatal heel-prick blood sampling with no significant difference in blood sampling time.

conclusionThe automatic lancet was found to be less painful than the needle puncture in neonatal heel-prick blood sampling with no significant difference in blood sampling time.

Indexed as

HeelNeedlesBlood Specimen CollectionCryingFemaleHumansInfant, NewbornMalePainPain MeasurementProspective Studiesautomatic lancetblood samplingheel prickneonatepain

Identifiers

PMID31917874
PMCPMC7187310
OpenAlexW2999580436

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.