ArticleJornal de pediatria
Looking at neonatal facial features of pain: do health and non-health professionals differ?
Article in Jornal de pediatria. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers.
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.
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.
Who cites it
5 citing papers in PubMed, 11 citations in OpenAlex.
- Article
- Eyes on Newborns: How NICU Staff's Attention and Emotions Shape Neonatal Pain Assessment.European journal of pain (London, England) · 2025Article
- Neonatal Pain Management: Is There An Endocrinal Response?Endocrine, metabolic & immune disorders drug targets · 2025Review
- Pediatricians' focus of sight at pain assessment during a neonatal heel puncture.Revista paulista de pediatria : orgao oficial da Sociedade de Pediatria de Sao Paulo · 2023Article
- Face-based automatic pain assessment: challenges and perspectives in neonatal intensive care units.Jornal de pediatriaReview
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
10 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveTo analyze the regions that trigger the attention of adults' gaze when assessing pain in newborn infants' pictures and to verify if there are differences between health and non-health professionals.
methodExperimental study with 84 health professionals and 59 non-health professionals, who evaluated two images of 10 neonates, one at rest and the other during a painful procedure. Each image was shown for 7 seconds on a computer screen, while eye movements were tracked by the Tobii TX300 EyeTracker. After evaluating each image, participants gave a score from 0 (absent pain) to 10 (maximum pain), according to their perception of neonatal pain. For each image, the number and total time of gaze fixations in the forehead, eyes, nasolabial furrow, and mouth were studied. Comparisons between both groups of adults were made by an intraclass correlation coefficient, Student's t-test, and Bland Altman graphic.
resultsHealth professionals (93% female; 34 ± 9 years old), compared to non-health professionals (64% female; 35 ± 11 years old), gave lower scores for images at rest (0.81 ± 0.50 vs. 1.59 ± 0.76; p = 0.010), with no difference for those obtained during the painful procedure (6.98 ± 1.08 vs. 6.73 ± 0.82). There was a strong or almost perfect correlation for the number of fixations in the mouth, eyes, forehead, and for the total fixation time in the eyes and forehead.
conclusionsAdults, irrespective of their profession, showed a homogeneous gaze pattern when evaluating pictures of neonates at rest or during a painful procedures.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.