Quality degradation in glass recycling: substitutability model proposal.

The sustainability assessment of waste management systems requires tools capable of evaluating material quality degradation during recycling. Existing research has predominantly focused on the development of substitutability models for plastics, leaving a gap in addressing other materials like glass. Glass is commonly regarded as endlessly recyclable, even though its actual recyclability depends on several crucial factors, such as colour and pollutant contamination. Many Life Cycle Assessment (LCA) studies in this field assume a one-to-one substitution coefficient, neglecting material deterioration and inaccurately representing real-world scenarios. This study proposes and assesses a substitutability model for glass, aiming to measure the replacement extent between virgin materials and recycled crushed glass (cullet). The methodology is based on two key factors: technical quality substitutability, considering impurities and colour contaminations in cullet, and market applicability, accounting for market demand. Once formulated, the model was applied to a European case study on glass waste treatment. Two scenarios were considered: one assuming complete substitution between cullet and raw materials, the other incorporating quality degradation. Findings indicate that, accounting for quality degradation, only 83% of cullet effectively replaces raw materials, resulting in a decrease of the benefit associated with recycling of 13-23% for the different examined impact categories, compared to complete replacement assumption. This underscores the importance of considering quality deterioration in glass recycling impact assessments.

Pharmacological interventions for the management of pain and discomfort during lumbar puncture in newborn infants.

BACKGROUND: Lumbar puncture (LP) is a common invasive procedure, most frequently performed to diagnose infection. Physicians perform LP in newborn infants with the help of an assistant using a strict aseptic technique; it is important to monitor the infant during all the steps of the procedure. Without adequate analgesia, LP can cause considerable pain and discomfort. As newborns have increased sensitivity to pain, it is crucial to adequately manage the procedural pain of LP in this population. OBJECTIVES: To assess the benefits and harms, including pain, discomfort, and success rate, of any pharmacological intervention during lumbar puncture in newborn infants, compared to placebo, no intervention, non-pharmacological interventions, or other pharmacological interventions. SEARCH METHODS: We searched CENTRAL, PubMed, Embase, and three trial registries in December 2022. We also screened the reference lists of included studies and related systematic reviews for studies not identified by the database searches. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and quasi-RCTs comparing drugs used for pain management, sedation, or both, during LP. We considered the following drugs suitable for inclusion. • Topical anesthetics (e.g. eutectic mixture of local anesthetics [EMLA], lidocaine) • Opioids (e.g. morphine, fentanyl) • Alpha-2 agonists (e.g. clonidine, dexmedetomidine) • N-Methyl-D-aspartate (NMDA) receptor antagonists (e.g. ketamine) • Other analgesics (e.g. paracetamol) • Sedatives (e.g. benzodiazepines such as midazolam) DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: We used standard Cochrane methods. We used the fixed-effect model with risk ratio (RR) for dichotomous data and mean difference (MD) or standardized mean difference (SMD) for continuous data, with their 95% confidence intervals (CIs). Our main outcomes were successful LP on first attempt, total number of LP attempts, episodes of bradycardia, pain assessed with validated scales, episodes of desaturation, number of episodes of apnea, and number of infants with one or more episodes of apnea. We used the GRADE approach to evaluate the certainty of the evidence. MAIN RESULTS: We included three studies (two RCTs and one quasi-RCT) that enrolled 206 newborns. One study included only term infants. All studies assessed topical treatment versus placebo or no intervention. The topical anesthetics were lidocaine 4%, lidocaine 1%, and EMLA. We identified no completed studies on opioids, non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs, alpha-2 agonists, NMDA receptor antagonists, other analgesics, sedatives, or head-to-head comparisons (drug A versus drug B). Based on very low-certainty evidence from one quasi-RCT of 100 LPs in 76 infants, we are unsure if topical anesthetics (lidocaine), compared to no anesthesia, has an effect on the following outcomes. • Successful LP on first attempt (first-attempts success in 48% of LPs in the lidocaine group and 42% of LPs in the control group) • Number of attempts per LP (mean 1.9 attempts, [standard error of the mean 0.2] in the lidocaine group, and mean 2.1 attempts [standard error of the mean 2.1] in the control group) • Episodes of bradycardia (0% of LPs in the lidocaine group and 4% of LPs in the control group) • Episodes of desaturation (0% of LPs in the lidocaine group and 8% of LPs in the control group) • Occurrence of apnea (RR 3.24, 95% CI 0.14 to 77.79; risk difference [RD] 0.02, 95% CI -0.03 to 0.08). Topical anesthetics compared to placebo may reduce pain assessed with the Neonatal Facial Coding System (NFCS) score (SMD -1.00 standard deviation (SD), 95% CI -1.47 to -0.53; I² = 98%; 2 RCTs, 112 infants; low-certainty evidence). No studies in this comparison reported total number of episodes of apnea. We identified three ongoing studies, which will assess the effects of EMLA, lidocaine, and fentanyl. Three studies are awaiting classification. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: The evidence is very uncertain about the effect of topical anesthetics (lidocaine) compared to no anesthesia on successful lumbar puncture on first attempt, the number of attempts per lumbar puncture, episodes of bradycardia, episodes of desaturation, and occurrence of apnea. Compared to placebo, topical anesthetics (lidocaine or EMLA) may reduce pain assessed with the NFCS score. One ongoing study will assess the effects of systemic treatment.

Opioids for procedural pain in neonates.

BACKGROUND: Neonates might be exposed to numerous painful procedures due to diagnostic reasons, therapeutic interventions, or surgical procedures. Options for pain management include opioids, non-pharmacological interventions, and other drugs. Morphine, fentanyl, and remifentanil are the opioids most often used in neonates. However, negative impact of opioids on the structure and function of the developing brain has been reported. OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the benefits and harms of opioids in term or preterm neonates exposed to procedural pain, compared to placebo or no drug, non-pharmacological intervention, other analgesics or sedatives, other opioids, or the same opioid administered by a different route. SEARCH METHODS: We used standard, extensive Cochrane search methods. The latest search date was December 2021. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included randomized controlled trials conducted in preterm and term infants of a postmenstrual age (PMA) up to 46 weeks and 0 days exposed to procedural pain where opioids were compared to 1) placebo or no drug; 2) non-pharmacological intervention; 3) other analgesics or sedatives; 4) other opioids; or 5) the same opioid administered by a different route. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: We used standard Cochrane methods. Our primary outcomes were pain assessed with validated methods and any harms. We used a fixed-effect model with risk ratio (RR) for dichotomous data and mean difference (MD) for continuous data, and their confidence intervals (CI). We used GRADE to assess the certainty of the evidence for each outcome. MAIN RESULTS: We included 13 independent studies (enrolling 823 newborn infants): seven studies compared opioids to no treatment or placebo (the main comparison in this review), two studies to oral sweet solution or non-pharmacological intervention, and five studies (of which two were part of the same study) to other analgesics and sedatives. All studies were performed in a hospital setting. Opioids compared to placebo or no drug Compared to placebo, opioids probably reduce pain score assessed with the Premature Infant Pain Profile (PIPP)/PIPP-Revised (PIPP-R) scale during the procedure (MD -2.58, 95% CI -3.12 to -2.03; 199 participants, 3 studies; moderate-certainty evidence); may reduce Neonatal Infant Pain Scale (NIPS) during the procedure (MD -1.97, 95% CI -2.46 to -1.48; 102 participants, 2 studies; low-certainty evidence); and may result in little to no difference in pain score assessed with the Douleur Aiguë du Nouveau-né (DAN) scale one to two hours after the procedure (MD -0.20, 95% CI -2.21 to 1.81; 42 participants, 1 study; low-certainty evidence). The evidence is very uncertain about the effect of opioids on pain score assessed with the PIPP/PIPP-R scale up to 30 minutes after the procedure (MD 0.14, 95% CI -0.17 to 0.45; 123 participants, 2 studies; very low-certainty evidence) or one to two hours after the procedure (MD -0.83, 95% CI -2.42 to 0.75; 54 participants, 2 studies; very low-certainty evidence). The evidence is very uncertain about the effect of opioids on episodes of bradycardia (RR 3.19, 95% CI 0.14 to 72.69; 172 participants, 3 studies; very low-certainty evidence). Opioids may result in an increase in episodes of apnea compared to placebo (RR 3.15, 95% CI 1.08 to 9.16; 199 participants, 3 studies; low-certainty evidence): with one study reporting a concerning increase in severe apnea (RR 7.44, 95% CI 0.42 to 132.95; 31 participants, 1 study; very low-certainty). The evidence is very uncertain about the effect of opioids on episodes of hypotension (RR not estimable, risk difference 0.00, 95% CI -0.06 to 0.06; 88 participants, 2 studies; very low-certainty evidence). No studies reported parent satisfaction with care provided in the neonatal intensive care unit (NICU). Opioids compared to non-pharmacological intervention The evidence is very uncertain about the effect of opioids on pain score assessed with the Crying Requires oxygen Increased vital signs Expression Sleep (CRIES) scale during the procedure when compared to facilitated tucking (MD -4.62, 95% CI -6.38 to -2.86; 100 participants, 1 study; very low-certainty evidence) or sensorial stimulation (MD 0.32, 95% CI -1.13 to 1.77; 100 participants, 1 study; very low-certainty evidence). The other main outcomes were not reported. Opioids compared to other analgesics or sedatives The evidence is very uncertain about the effect of opioids on pain score assessed with the PIPP/PIPP-R during the procedure (MD -0.29, 95% CI -1.58 to 1.01; 124 participants, 2 studies; very low-certainty evidence); up to 30 minutes after the procedure (MD -1.10, 95% CI -2.82 to 0.62; 12 participants, 1 study; very low-certainty evidence); and one to two hours after the procedure (MD -0.17, 95% CI -2.22 to 1.88; 12 participants, 1 study; very low-certainty evidence). No studies reported any harms. The evidence is very uncertain about the effect of opioids on episodes of apnea during (RR 3.27, 95% CI 0.85 to 12.58; 124 participants, 2 studies; very low-certainty evidence) and after the procedure (RR 2.71, 95% CI 0.11 to 64.96; 124 participants, 2 studies; very low-certainty evidence) and on hypotension (RR 1.34, 95% CI 0.32 to 5.59; 204 participants, 3 studies; very low-certainty evidence). The other main outcomes were not reported. We identified no studies comparing different opioids (e.g. morphine versus fentanyl) or different routes for administration of the same opioid (e.g. morphine enterally versus morphine intravenously). AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Compared to placebo, opioids probably reduce pain score assessed with PIPP/PIPP-R scale during the procedure; may reduce NIPS during the procedure; and may result in little to no difference in DAN one to two hours after the procedure. The evidence is very uncertain about the effect of opioids on pain assessed with other pain scores or at different time points. The evidence is very uncertain about the effect of opioids on episodes of bradycardia, hypotension or severe apnea. Opioids may result in an increase in episodes of apnea. No studies reported parent satisfaction with care provided in the NICU. The evidence is very uncertain about the effect of opioids on any outcome when compared to non-pharmacological interventions or to other analgesics. We identified no studies comparing opioids to other opioids or comparing different routes of administration of the same opioid.

Opioids for procedural pain in neonates.

BACKGROUND: Neonates might be exposed to numerous painful procedures due to diagnostic reasons, therapeutic interventions, or surgical procedures. Options for pain management include opioids, non-pharmacological interventions, and other drugs. Morphine, fentanyl, and remifentanil are the opioids most often used in neonates. However, negative impact of opioids on the structure and function of the developing brain has been reported. OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the benefits and harms of opioids in term or preterm neonates exposed to procedural pain, compared to placebo or no drug, non-pharmacological intervention, other analgesics or sedatives, other opioids, or the same opioid administered by a different route. SEARCH METHODS: We used standard, extensive Cochrane search methods. The latest search date was December 2021. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included randomized controlled trials conducted in preterm and term infants of a postmenstrual age (PMA) up to 46 weeks and 0 days exposed to procedural pain where opioids were compared to 1) placebo or no drug; 2) non-pharmacological intervention; 3) other analgesics or sedatives; 4) other opioids; or 5) the same opioid administered by a different route. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: We used standard Cochrane methods. Our primary outcomes were pain assessed with validated methods and any harms. We used a fixed-effect model with risk ratio (RR) for dichotomous data and mean difference (MD) for continuous data, and their confidence intervals (CI). We used GRADE to assess the certainty of the evidence for each outcome. MAIN RESULTS: We included 13 independent studies (enrolling 823 newborn infants): seven studies compared opioids to no treatment or placebo (the main comparison in this review), two studies to oral sweet solution or non-pharmacological intervention, and five studies (of which two were part of the same study) to other analgesics and sedatives. All studies were performed in a hospital setting. Opioids compared to placebo or no drug Compared to placebo, opioids probably reduce pain score assessed with the Premature Infant Pain Profile (PIPP)/PIPP-Revised (PIPP-R) scale during the procedure (MD -2.58, 95% CI -3.12 to -2.03; 199 participants, 3 studies; moderate-certainty evidence); may reduce Neonatal Infant Pain Scale (NIPS) during the procedure (MD -1.97, 95% CI -2.46 to -1.48; 102 participants, 2 studies; low-certainty evidence); and may result in little to no difference in pain score assessed with the Douleur Aiguë du Nouveau-né (DAN) scale one to two hours after the procedure (MD -0.20, 95% CI -2.21 to 1.81; 42 participants, 1 study; low-certainty evidence). The evidence is very uncertain about the effect of opioids on pain score assessed with the PIPP/PIPP-R scale up to 30 minutes after the procedure (MD 0.14, 95% CI -0.17 to 0.45; 123 participants, 2 studies; very low-certainty evidence) or one to two hours after the procedure (MD -0.83, 95% CI -2.42 to 0.75; 54 participants, 2 studies; very low-certainty evidence). No studies reported any harms. The evidence is very uncertain about the effect of opioids on episodes of bradycardia (RR 3.19, 95% CI 0.14 to 72.69; 172 participants, 3 studies; very low-certainty evidence). Opioids may result in an increase in episodes of apnea compared to placebo (RR 3.15, 95% CI 1.08 to 9.16; 199 participants, 3 studies; low-certainty evidence). The evidence is very uncertain about the effect of opioids on episodes of hypotension (RR not estimable, risk difference 0.00, 95% CI -0.06 to 0.06; 88 participants, 2 studies; very low-certainty evidence). No studies reported parent satisfaction with care provided in the neonatal intensive care unit (NICU). Opioids compared to non-pharmacological intervention The evidence is very uncertain about the effect of opioids on pain score assessed with the Crying Requires oxygen Increased vital signs Expression Sleep (CRIES) scale during the procedure when compared to facilitated tucking (MD -4.62, 95% CI -6.38 to -2.86; 100 participants, 1 study; very low-certainty evidence) or sensorial stimulation (MD 0.32, 95% CI -1.13 to 1.77; 100 participants, 1 study; very low-certainty evidence). The other main outcomes were not reported. Opioids compared to other analgesics or sedatives The evidence is very uncertain about the effect of opioids on pain score assessed with the PIPP/PIPP-R during the procedure (MD -0.29, 95% CI -1.58 to 1.01; 124 participants, 2 studies; very low-certainty evidence); up to 30 minutes after the procedure (MD -1.10, 95% CI -2.82 to 0.62; 12 participants, 1 study; very low-certainty evidence); and one to two hours after the procedure (MD -0.17, 95% CI -2.22 to 1.88; 12 participants, 1 study; very low-certainty evidence). No studies reported any harms. The evidence is very uncertain about the effect of opioids on episodes of apnea during (RR 3.27, 95% CI 0.85 to 12.58; 124 participants, 2 studies; very low-certainty evidence) and after the procedure (RR 2.71, 95% CI 0.11 to 64.96; 124 participants, 2 studies; very low-certainty evidence) and on hypotension (RR 1.34, 95% CI 0.32 to 5.59; 204 participants, 3 studies; very low-certainty evidence). The other main outcomes were not reported. We identified no studies comparing different opioids (e.g. morphine versus fentanyl) or different routes for administration of the same opioid (e.g. morphine enterally versus morphine intravenously). AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Compared to placebo, opioids probably reduce pain score assessed with PIPP/PIPP-R scale during the procedure; may reduce NIPS during the procedure; and may result in little to no difference in DAN one to two hours after the procedure. The evidence is very uncertain about the effect of opioids on pain assessed with other pain scores or at different time points. No studies reported if any harms occurred. The evidence is very uncertain about the effect of opioids on episodes of bradycardia or hypotension. Opioids may result in an increase in episodes of apnea. No studies reported parent satisfaction with care provided in the NICU. The evidence is very uncertain about the effect of opioids on any outcome when compared to non-pharmacological interventions or to other analgesics. We identified no studies comparing opioids to other opioids or comparing different routes of administration of the same opioid.

Interventions for the Management of Pain and Sedation in Newborns Undergoing Therapeutic Hypothermia for Hypoxic-Ischemic Encephalopathy: A Systematic Review.

BACKGROUND: Newborn infants undergoing therapeutic hypothermia (TH) are exposed to multiple painful and stressful procedures. The aim of this systematic review was to assess benefits and harms of pharmacological and non-pharmacological interventions for the management of pain and sedation in newborn infants undergoing TH for hypoxic-ischemic encephalopathy. METHODS: We included randomized and observational studies reporting any intervention (either drugs or non-pharmacological interventions) to manage pain and sedation in newborn infants (> 33 weeks' gestational age) undergoing TH. We included any dose, duration and route of administration. We also included any type and duration of non-pharmacological interventions. Our prespecified primary outcomes were analgesia and sedation assessed using validated pain scales in the neonatal population; circulatory instability; mortality to discharge; and neurodevelopmental disability. A systematic literature search was conducted in the PubMed, Embase, CINAHL, Cochrane CENTRAL, Scopus, and Web of Science databases, with no language restrictions. Included studies underwent risk-of-bias assessment (Cochrane risk-of-bias tool and ROBINS-I) and data extraction performed by two authors independently. The plan had been to use effect measures such as mean difference for continuous outcomes and risk ratio for dichotomous outcomes, however the included studies are presented in a narrative synthesis due to their paucity and heterogeneity. RESULTS: Ten studies involving 3551 infants were included-one trial and nine observational studies. Most studies examined the use of phenobarbital or other antiepileptic drugs with primary outcomes related to seizure activity. The single trial that was included compared pentoxifylline with placebo. Among the primary outcomes, six studies reported circulatory instability and five reported mortality to discharge without relevant differences; two studies reported on neurodevelopmental disability and one study reported on pain scale. Three studies were ongoing. CONCLUSIONS: We found limited evidence to establish the benefits and harms of the interventions for the management of pain and sedation in newborn infants undergoing TH. Long-term outcomes were not reported. Given the very low certainty of evidence-due to imprecision of the estimates, inconsistency and limitations in study design (all nine observational studies with overall serious risk of bias)-for all outcomes, clinical trials are required to determine the most effective interventions in this population. SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION: PROSPERO registration number: CRD42020205755.

Interventions for children with deafblindness-An integrative review.

BACKGROUND: Deafblindness is a rare condition, and its prevalence has been reported to be approximately 1 in 27 000 new-borns worldwide. For individuals with deafblindness, lifelong interventions and support are needed to be able to develop communication, be active and preserve a good quality of life. Because little is known about what kind of support and interventions can be offered to children with deafblindness, the aim was to summarize and disseminate research findings regarding this topic. METHODS: Integrative review principles were employed. Systematic searches in eight databases and additional manual searches were conducted. The inclusion criteria were as follows: original studies published between 2000 and 2021 examining either interventions for children between 0 and 18 years of age with deafblindness or interventions aimed at children with deafblindness but offered to their relatives or professionals working with them. Studies on support for family members were also sought. Study characteristics were described, and key findings were synthesized into categories based on their similarities. RESULTS: Of the 6268 identified original studies, 32 were included. The key outcomes from the included studies were synthesized into three categories, with two categories illustrating the goal/intention of the intervention (social interaction and communication, motivation and participation) and one focusing on or identifying the action taken to benefit the child (adaptation of the educational environment). Social interaction and communication was the dominant category, covering 24 of the 32 included studies. CONCLUSIONS: This review concludes that there are a limited number of evaluated interventions for children with deafblindness. In many cases, the interventions were adapted to the individual child's needs, and most of them were found within the area of social interaction and communication. More research is needed to strengthen the level of evidence for interventions for children with deafblindness.

Pharmacological interventions for pain and sedation management in newborn infants undergoing therapeutic hypothermia.

BACKGROUND: Newborn infants affected by hypoxic-ischemic encephalopathy (HIE) undergo therapeutic hypothermia. As this treatment seems to be associated with pain, and intensive and invasive care is needed, pharmacological interventions are often used. Moreover, painful procedures in the newborn period can affect pain responses later in life, impair brain development, and possibly have a long-term negative impact on neurodevelopment and quality of life. OBJECTIVES: To determine the effects of pharmacological interventions for pain and sedation management in newborn infants undergoing therapeutic hypothermia. Primary outcomes were analgesia and sedation, and all-cause mortality to discharge. SEARCH METHODS: We searched CENTRAL, PubMed, CINAHL (Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature), and the trial register ISRCTN in August 2021. We also checked the reference lists of relevant articles to identify additional studies. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included randomized controlled trials (RCT), quasi-RCTs and cluster-randomized trials comparing drugs used for the management of pain or sedation, or both, during therapeutic hypothermia: any opioids (e.g. morphine, fentanyl), alpha-2 agonists (e.g. clonidine, dexmedetomidine), N-Methyl-D-aspartate (NMDA) receptor antagonist (e.g. ketamine), other analgesics (e.g. paracetamol), and sedatives (e.g. benzodiazepines such as midazolam) versus another drug, placebo, no intervention, or non-pharmacological interventions.  Primary outcomes were analgesia and sedation, and all-cause mortality to discharge. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors independently assessed studies identified by the search strategy for inclusion. We planned to use the GRADE approach to assess the certainty of evidence. We planned to assess the methodological quality of included trials using Cochrane Effective Practice and Organisation of Care Group (EPOC) criteria (assessing randomization, blinding, loss to follow-up, and handling of outcome data). We planned to evaluate treatment effects using a fixed-effect model with risk ratio (RR) for categorical data and mean, standard deviation (SD), and mean difference (MD) for continuous data.  MAIN RESULTS: We did not find any completed studies for inclusion. Amongst the four excluded studies, topiramate and atropine were used in two and one trial, respectively; one study used dexmedetomidine and was initially reported in 2019 to be a randomized trial. However, it was an observational study (correction in 2021). We identified one ongoing study comparing dexmedetomidine to morphine. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: We found no studies that met our inclusion criteria and hence there is no evidence to recommend or refute the use of pharmacological interventions for pain and sedation management in newborn infants undergoing therapeutic hypothermia.

Clonidine as analgesia during retinopathy of prematurity screening in preterm infants (cloROP): protocol for a randomised controlled trial.

INTRODUCTION: Preterm infants are at risk of negative consequences from stress and pain at the same time as they often are in need of intensive care that includes painful interventions. One of the frequent painful procedures preterm infants undergo is eye examination screening to detect early signs of ROP (retinopathy of prematurity). These examinations are both stressful and painful, and despite a multitude of research studies, no conclusive pain-relieving treatment has been demonstrated. The main aim of this trial is to investigate the analgesic effect of clonidine during ROP eye examinations. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: The planned study is a multicentre randomised controlled trial with a crossover design. Infants will be recruited from two different neonatal intensive care units (NICUs) in Sweden. Infants born before gestation week 30 (and therefore eligible for ROP screening) and cared for in either of the NICUs will be eligible for inclusion in the study. The primary outcome will be Premature Infant Pain Profile-Revised score within 30 s after starting the examination. Secondary outcomes will be changes in the galvanic skin response parameters (area small peaks, area huge peaks, peaks per second and average rise time) within 30 s after starting the eye examination, together with the number and evaluation of adverse events reported within 72 hours after the examination and the examining physician's assessment of how easy the infant was to examine. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: Approval from the Swedish Ethical Review Authority and the Swedish Medical Products Agency has been obtained for the study. Parents of eligible infants will be getting both verbal and written information about the study including that participation is voluntary. Data will be collected and treated in accordance with the European general data protection regulations. The results will be reported on group level and published in a scientific journal. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT04902859).EudraCT (2021-003005-21).

Interventions for the management of Pain and Sedation in Newborns undergoing Therapeutic hypothermia for hypoxic-ischemic encephalopathy (IPSNUT): protocol of a systematic review.

BACKGROUND: Clinical research has shown that therapeutic hypothermia after neonatal hypoxic-ischemic injury improves survival without disability. There is no consensus regarding pain relief or sedation during therapeutic hypothermia in newborns; however, therapeutic hypothermia seems to be associated with pain and stress, and adequate analgesia and sedation are central to maximize the effect of therapeutic hypothermia. Pain needs to be adequately managed in all patients, especially the newborn infant due to the potential short- and long-term negative effects of inadequately treated pain in this population. METHODS: We will perform a systematic review of pharmacological and non-pharmacological interventions for the management of pain and sedation in newborn infants undergoing therapeutic hypothermia for hypoxic-ischemic encephalopathy. We will include randomized, quasi-randomized controlled trials and observational studies. The use of pharmacological or non-pharmacological interventions will be compared to other pharmacological and or non-pharmacological interventions or no intervention/placebo. The primary outcomes for this review will be analgesia and sedation assessed with validated pain scales, circulatory instability, mortality to discharge, and moderate-to-severe neurodevelopmental disability. We will search the following databases: CINAHL, ClinicalTrials.gov , Cochrane Library, Embase, PubMed, Scopus, and Web of Science. Two independent researchers will screen the records for inclusion, extract data using a data extraction form, and assess the risk of bias in the included trials. DISCUSSION: The result of this review will summarize the knowledge regarding the management of pain and sedation in infants treated with therapeutic hypothermia and potentially provide clinicians with guidance on the effective and safe methods. SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION: PROSPERO CRD42020205755.

Regular clinical follow-up of oral potentially malignant disorders results in improved survival for patients who develop oral cancer.

OBJECTIVES: To evaluate whether clinical follow-up programs of oral potentially malignant disorders (OPMD) result in earlier detection and improved survival rates if malignant transformation occurs, as compared to OPMD patients without follow-up and other patients with oral squamous cell carcinoma (OSCC). MATERIALS AND METHODS: Three OSCC groups were retrospectively studied for disease stage at diagnosis and survival rates (N = 739): Group A, patients with OSCC with regular follow-up of preceding OPMD (N = 94); Group B, patients with OSCC with preceding OPMD but no follow-up (N = 68); Group C, patients with OSCC without previously known OPMD diagnosis (N = 577). RESULTS: The patients with OPMD with follow-up (Group A) was diagnosed at a significantly earlier stage and have significantly higher survival rates compared to Group B (p < 0.001 and p = 0.022, respectively) and Group C (p < 0.001 and p < 0.001, respectively). There was no significant difference between Group B and Group C in terms of survival rate (p = 0.143) or stage at diagnosis (p = 0.475). Patients with OPMD and follow-up (Group A) had a 5-year net survival rate of 90.0% (95%CI 80.3-100.8%), as compared to 68.3% percent (95% CI 54.5-85.7) for Group B and 56.1% (95% CI 51.4-61.3) for Group C. CONCLUSION: The results of this study indicate that regular follow-up of patients with OPMD results in earlier detection of OSCC (if malignant transformation occurs) and improved survival.

Nurses' perception, knowledge, and use of neonatal pain assessment.

Preterm and sick newborn infants undergo several painful procedures during their hospital stay, potentially leading to short- and long-term negative consequences. Pain assessment should be performed regularly to provide optimal pain management. Nurses' knowledge of and attitude toward neonatal pain assessment affect how pain is assessed and managed in the clinical situation. The aim of this study was to explore Swedish nurses' perception, knowledge, and use of neonatal pain assessment. This descriptive, cross-sectional questionnaire study was conducted across all Swedish neonatal units (n = 38). Respondents were chosen through convenience sampling by the head nurses at each unit. Ten nurses from each unit were asked to complete the survey, which contained both closed and open questions. A majority of the units (30/38; 79%) participated and 232 surveys were returned, a response rate of 61%. Of the nurses, 91% thought that neonatal pain assessment was important. Many nurses mentioned various difficulties with pain assessment and concerns that the scales used might not assess pain correctly. About half of the nurses considered themselves to have enough knowledge of neonatal pain assessment. Those who reported having enough knowledge of pain assessment viewed the pain scales used at their units more positively. Of the nurses, 74% reported using a pain assessment scale several times per work shift. Pain management guidelines were available according to 75% of nurses, but only 53% reported that the guidelines were followed. Although nurses in general expressed a positive attitude toward pain assessment scales, this was not necessarily evident in their clinical practice. Lack of knowledge, available or accessible guidelines, or concerns regarding the validity of available pain scales seemed to limit their use.

The use and reporting of neonatal pain scales: a systematic review of randomized trials.

ABSTRACT: The burden of pain in newborn infants has been investigated in numerous studies, but little is known about the appropriateness of the use of pain scales according to the specific type of pain or infant condition. This systematic review aimed to evaluate the reporting of neonatal pain scales in randomized trials. A systematic search up to March 2019 was performed in Embase, PubMed, PsycINFO, CINAHL, Cochrane Library, Scopus, and Luxid. Randomized and quasirandomized trials reporting neonatal pain scales were included. Screening of the studies for inclusion, data extraction, and quality assessment was performed independently by 2 researchers. Of 3718 trials found, 352 with 29,137 infants and 22 published pain scales were included. Most studies (92%) concerned procedural pain, where the most frequently used pain scales were the Premature Infant Pain Profile or Premature Infant Pain Profile-Revised (48%), followed by the Neonatal Infant Pain Scale (23%). Although the Neonatal Infant Pain Scale is validated only for acute pain, it was also the second most used scale for ongoing and postoperative pain (21%). Only in a third of the trials, blinding for those performing the pain assessment was described. In 55 studies (16%), pain scales that were used lacked validation for the specific neonatal population or type of pain. Six validated pain scales were used in 90% of all trials, although not always in the correct population or type of pain. Depending on the type of pain and population of infants included in a study, appropriate scales should be selected. The inappropriate use raises serious concerns about research ethics and use of resources.

The evidence supporting the association between the use of pain scales and outcomes in hospitalized children: A systematic review.

BACKGROUND: Systematic use of pain intensity scales is considered a prerequisite for treatment of pain in hospitalized children, but already a decade ago, attention was called to the lack of robust evidence supporting the presumed positive association between their use and desired outcomes. OBJECTIVES: To re-evaluate the evidence supporting the association between the use of pain scales and patient and process outcomes in hospitalized children. DESIGN: Systematic literature review. DATA SOURCES: The online databases PubMed and Cumulative Index of Nursing and Allied Health Literature (CINAHL) were searched from inception to April 15, 2020. REVIEW METHODS: We performed single screening of all records followed by duplicate screening of full texts of interest with a disagreement procedure in place. Studies where the authors evaluated outcomes from the use of self-report or behavioral-based pain scales in children 0-18 years in a hospital setting were included. Emergency care settings were excluded. RESULTS: In a majority of the 32 included studies, complex interventions that included one or more pain scales were evaluated. Process outcomes (e.g., documentation) were most frequently studied. Interventions were commonly associated with improved documentation of pain assessment, while the effect on pain management documentation was inconsistent. However, improvements in process outcomes did not necessarily result in better patient outcomes. In regard to patient outcomes (e.g., pain intensity, side effects, or satisfaction with treatment), some authors reported reduced pain intensity on group level, but the effect on other functional outcomes, child and parent satisfaction, and aspects of safety were inconsistent. Methodological issues, e.g., weak study designs and small samples, biased the results, and it was not possible to determine how pain scales contributed to the overall effects since they were studied as part of complex interventions. CONCLUSIONS: Although both a theoretically founded understanding of pain and clinical experience suggest that the use of pain scales will make a difference for hospitalized children with pain, there is still limited evidence to support this notion. As pain scales have been almost exclusively studied as an aspect of complex interventions, research that determines the active ingredient(s) in a complex intervention and their joint and individual effects on outcomes that are meaningful for the child (for example reduced pain intensity or improved function) are urgently needed. Tweetable abstract: Limited #research supports association between use of pediatric #pain scales and patient outcomes @_randida @PainPearl.

"Paying it Forward" - Swedish Women's Experiences of Donating Human Milk.

BACKGROUND: Human milk is recommended as the only nutritional source during the first 6 months of life. For preterm infants, the benefits of human milk are even more important and can alleviate the negative influences of preterm birth. RESEARCH AIM: To describe how Swedish human milk donors experienced the donation process. METHOD: A prospective mixed methods mail survey was designed. It was sent to human milk donors (N = 72) at two Swedish hospitals. Quantitative data are presented with descriptive statistics and qualitative data were analyzed using qualitative content analysis. RESULTS: The infants were between newborn and 17 weeks of age when the participants started their human milk donations, and the duration of the donation period lasted 1-24 weeks. The overall theme identified was the participants' strong desire to help infants, often expressed as being involved in saving infants' lives. Many participants experienced difficulties getting the information needed to become human milk donors; for others, expressing milk required both time and energy that they could otherwise spend with their own newborn infants. CONCLUSION: Donating human milk can be experienced as a demanding and strenuous task. Therefore, it is important that women who donate human milk receive the practical help from health care staff that they feel they need. Furthermore, information and knowledge about the possibility of donating human milk, and how important human milk is for preterm and/or sick infants, are important in order to increase the number of women willing to donate human milk.

External barriers for including parents of preterm infants in a randomised clinical trial in the neonatal intensive care unit in Sweden: a descriptive study.

OBJECTIVES: Performing randomised controlled trials (RCTs) in neonatal intensive care is challenging in many ways. While restrictive inclusion criteria or busy study protocols are obvious barriers, external barriers leading to termination of a study are seldom discussed. The aim of this study was to describe barriers for inclusion of families in neonatal intensive care in an RCT aiming to evaluate the effects of continuous skin-to-skin contact on mood and sleep quality in parents of preterm infants, as well as the quality of parent-infant interaction and salivary cortisol concentrations at the time of discharge. DESIGN: A descriptive study. SETTING: Three out of seven tertiary neonatal intensive care units in Sweden participated in a two-arm RCT that was terminated because of low inclusion rate. PARTICIPANTS: Before termination of the study, 11 out of 242 families assessed for eligibility were included for participation. RESULTS: The major barriers for inclusion in this RCT were external due to (1) lack of intensive care beds in the neonatal ward, causing medically stable infants to be transferred back to the referring hospital quicker than expected, (2) moving directly from the delivery room to a family room without passing an open bay intensive care room or (3) transferring from one neonatal ward to another with the same care level to increase availability of intensive care beds where needed. Other barriers were the inclusion criteria 'single-birth' and 'Swedish-speaking parent'. CONCLUSIONS: The major barriers for including participants were external constituted by transferals between neonatal wards and cities due to lack of intensive care beds. This is a multifactorial issue related to organisational structures. However, since this affects the possibilities to perform research this study highlights some suggestions to consider when planning prospective intervention studies within a neonatal setting. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: NCT03004677.

Study protocol: parents as pain management in Swedish neonatal care - SWEpap, a multi-center randomized controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: During the first period of life, critically ill as well as healthy newborn infants experience recurrent painful procedures. Parents are a valuable but often overlooked resource in procedural pain management in newborns. Interventions to improve parents' knowledge and involvement in infants' pain management are essential to implement in the care of the newborn infant. Neonatal pain research has studied a range of non-pharmacological pain alleviating strategies during painful procedures, yet, regarding combined multisensorial parent-driven non-pharmacological pain management, research is still lacking. METHODS/DESIGN: A multi-center randomized controlled trial (RCT) with three parallel groups with the allocation ratio 1:1:1 is planned. The RCT "Parents as pain management in Swedish neonatal care - SWEpap", will investigate the efficacy of combined pain management with skin-to-skin contact, breastfeeding and live parental lullaby singing compared with standard pain care initiated by health care professionals, during routine metabolic screening of newborn infants (PKU-test). DISCUSSION: Parental involvement in neonatal pain management enables a range of comforting parental interventions such as skin-to-skin contact, breastfeeding, rocking and soothing vocalizations. To date, few studies have been published examining the efficacy of combined multisensorial parent-driven interventions. So far, research shows that the use of combined parent-driven pain management such as skin-to-skin contact and breastfeeding, is more effective in reducing behavioral responses to pain in infants, than using the pain-relieving interventions alone. Combined parental soothing behaviors that provide rhythmic (holding/rocking/vocalizing) or orogustatory/orotactile (feeding/pacifying) stimulation that keep the parent close to the infant, are more effective in a painful context. In the SWEpap study we also include parental live lullaby singing, which is an unexplored but promising biopsychosocial, multimodal and multisensory pain alleviating adjuvant, especially in combination with skin-to-skin contact and breastfeeding. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov ( NCT04341194 ) 10 April 2020.

Pain Assessment and Management in Swedish Neonatal Intensive Care Units.

AIMS: To investigate registered nurses' (RNs') and physicians' knowledge, attitudes, and experiences regarding assessing and managing pain in infants at seven level III neonatal intensive care units (NICUs) in Sweden. DESIGN: Descriptive and explorative study using an online questionnaire. METHODS: A researcher-developed online questionnaire with 34 items about knowledge, attitudes, and experiences regarding pain assessment and management was emailed to 306 RNs and 79 physicians working at seven neonatal intensive care units (NICUs) in Sweden. RESULTS: Most NICUs had pain assessment guidelines, but there was a discrepancy regarding interprofessional discussions of pain assessments. A total of seven different pain assessment instruments were reported from the included NICUs and RNs were reportedly those who usually performed the pain assessments. Most respondents expressed a positive attitude toward pain assessment but recognized a lack of intervention after the assessment. Forty-six percent (n = 11) of the physicians said they had sufficient knowledge of assessing pain using pain assessment instruments, versus 75% (n = 110) of the RNs. Difficulties assessing pain in certain populations of infants, such as the most premature infants and infants receiving sedative medicines, were recognized. CONCLUSIONS: RNs in this study reported that their pain assessments did not lead to appropriate pain management interventions. They were thus discouraged from further pain assessments or advocating for ethical pain management. An interprofessional team effort is needed to effectively assess and manage pain in neonates.

Development of a Digital Decision Support Tool to Aid Participation of Children With Disabilities in Pediatric Rehabilitation Services: Explorative Qualitative Study.

BACKGROUND: Building a health care system in accordance with the rule of law requires child-centered care, where children and young people, regardless of ability, are allowed to participate in visits with their health care professionals. As part of an overall project focusing on developing and implementing a digital decision support tool to increase the participation of children with disabilities in pediatric rehabilitation, this study brings new knowledge as to how this specific patient group views participation. OBJECTIVE: The aim of this formative study was to explore the experiences of children and young people with disabilities concerning increasing their participation in the pediatric rehabilitation services. METHODS: The formative study had an explorative design, based on a latent qualitative content analysis with an inductive approach. Interviews were conducted with 20 children (6-17 years) and 8 young people (19-30 years) with disabilities about their experiences of participation in pediatric rehabilitation services. RESULTS: A total of 3 categories emerged reflecting the participants' possibilities of participation in the pediatric rehabilitation services: to feel involved, to feel independent, and to work in partnership. To feel involved meant being listened to and being connected, to feel independent meant being admitted and being enabled, and to work in partnership meant being supported and being able to entrust others with the decision making. With the overall theme moving toward empowerment of children in pediatric rehabilitation, a true feeling of participation can be experienced. CONCLUSIONS: The views of children and young people with disabilities are that children should be given the prerequisites for empowerment by being allowed to feel involved and independent as well as to work in partnership to experience true participation in the pediatric rehabilitation services. This finding is essential in the design of a digital decision support tool based on the children's needs and perspectives.

Oral sweet solution to prevent pain during neonatal hip examination: a randomised controlled trial.

AIM: To determine if oral glucose can have a pain-relieving effect during routine hip examinations in newborn infants. METHODS: In this randomised controlled study 100 newborn infants undergoing the routine physical examination including the potentially painful hip examination were included between March 2016 and April 2017. Fifty infants were randomised to water (control) and 50 to oral glucose (intervention) before their examination. Pain was assessed using crying time, Astrid Lindgren and Lund Children's Hospital Pain and Stress Assessment Scale (ALPS-Neo) and Visual analogue scale (VAS). RESULTS: Total crying time (p = 0.006), crying time during the hip examination (p = 0.026), ALPS-Neo (p = 0.004) and VAS (p = 0.006) (when assessed by the physician) were all significantly decreased in the group of infants receiving glucose. VAS assessment made by the parents did not reach statistical significance (p = 0.127). CONCLUSION: Oral glucose given before the examination has a pain-relieving effect during the hip examination in healthy newborn infants.

T2 relaxation time bias in gagCEST at 3T and 7T: comparison of saturation schemes.

PURPOSE: To characterize the effects of water T2 relaxation time in the glycosaminoglycan chemical exchange saturation transfer method (gagCEST) and compare them between 3T and 7T as well as between various saturation schemes. METHODS: Simulations and a phantom experiment were conducted at 3T and 7T in a range of water T2 values and GAG concentrations using various saturation schemes. For both simulations and MRI measurements, unsaturated signal as well as the saturated Z-spectrum were generated, and the magnetization transfer ratio asymmetry at 1 parts per million was used as a measure of the gagCEST effect size. RESULTS: The simulations and phantom experiment results showed a clear GAG concentration and T2 dependence of the gagCEST effect size. Whereas the gagCEST effect size was much larger at 7T, the impact of the T2 bias was more pronounced at 3T. The saturation train length, duty cycle, and average B1 all had clear impact on both the gagCEST effect size and T2 bias. CONCLUSION: The water T2 relaxation is important to consider in gagCEST, especially at 3T. The T2 differences can introduce a pronounced bias, which may obscure the gagCEST effect when using low duty cycles and long saturation trains.