Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 1,063

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 1 of the 1 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Epidemiology and Treatment of Painful Procedures in Neonates in Intensive Care Units

Carbajal, Ricardo·2008·JAMA

Abstract

CONTEXT: Effective strategies to improve pain management in neonates require a clear understanding of the epidemiology and management of procedural pain. OBJECTIVE: To report epidemiological data on neonatal pain collected from a geographically defined region, based on direct bedside observation of neonates. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PATIENTS: Between September 2005 and January 2006, data on all painful and stressful procedures and corresponding analgesic therapy from the first 14 days of admission were prospectively collected within a 6-week period from 430 neonates admitted to tertiary care centers in the Paris region of France (11.3 millions inhabitants) for the Epidemiology of Procedural Pain in Neonates (EPIPPAIN) study. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURE: Number of procedures considered painful or stressful by health personnel and corresponding analgesic therapy. RESULTS: The mean (SD) gestational age and intensive care unit stay were 33.0 (4.6) weeks and 8.4 (4.6) calendar days, respectively. Neonates experienced 60,969 first-attempt procedures, with 42,413 (69.6%) painful and 18,556 (30.4%) stressful procedures; 11,546 supplemental attempts were performed during procedures including 10,366 (89.8%) for painful and 1180 (10.2%) for stressful procedures. Each neonate experienced a median of 115 (range, 4-613) procedures during the study period and 16 (range, 0-62) procedures per day of hospitalization. Of these, each neonate experienced a median of 75 (range, 3-364) painful procedures during the study period and 10 (range, 0-51) painful procedures per day of hospitalization. Of the 42,413 painful procedures, 2.1% were performed with pharmacological-only therapy; 18.2% with nonpharmacological-only interventions, 20.8% with pharmacological, nonpharmacological, or both types of therapy; and 79.2% without specific analgesia, and 34.2% were performed while the neonate was receiving concurrent analgesic or anesthetic infusions for other reasons. Prematurity, category of procedure, parental presence, surgery, daytime, and day of procedure after the first day of admission were associated with greater use of specific preprocedural analgesia, whereas mechanical ventilation, noninvasive ventilation and administration of nonspecific concurrent analgesia were associated with lower use of specific preprocedural analgesia. CONCLUSION: During neonatal intensive care in the Paris region, large numbers of painful and stressful procedures were performed, the majority of which were not accompanied by analgesia.

Overview

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1001/jama.300.1.60

Cites

1 of 1 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Verification

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Citations

Cited by

See all 1,063

Metadata

Authors
Carbajal, R.
Venue
JAMA
Published
2008-07-02
Volume
300
Issue
1
Pages
60
ISSN
  • 0002-9955 (ISSN-L)
  • 0098-7484
OpenAlex
W2125607951
Cited by
1,063
References
1
FWCI
36.34
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review

How to cite

Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.

This page
CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Epidemiology and Treatment of Painful Procedures in Neonates in Intensive Care Units. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1001/jama.300.1.60
The paper
Carbajal, R. (2008). Epidemiology and Treatment of Painful Procedures in Neonates in Intensive Care Units. JAMA. https://doi.org/10.1001/jama.300.1.60

Data sources

Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.

Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).

Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.