AIM: To assess the ability of galvanic skin response (GSR) to differentiate between tactile and painful stimulation in newborn infants, and to compare this with the ability of the premature infant pain profile (PIPP). METHODS:Thirty-two healthy full-term infants undergoing routine blood sampling were recruited. In a randomized order they were subjected to tactile and painful stimulation. The three GSR variables conductance baseline level, number of waves per second and mean amplitude of the waves were recorded together with the behavioural and physiological variables of PIPP. RESULTS: The GSR variables number of waves and amplitude of the waves increased more during painful stimulation than during tactile stimulation, as did also the PIPP score. Receiver operating characteristic curves analysis revealed no significant differences between the studied methods. CONCLUSION:GSR can differentiate painful from tactile stimulation, but more research is needed to achieve a clinically useful application.
RCT Entities:
AIM: To assess the ability of galvanic skin response (GSR) to differentiate between tactile and painful stimulation in newborn infants, and to compare this with the ability of the premature infantpain profile (PIPP). METHODS: Thirty-two healthy full-term infants undergoing routine blood sampling were recruited. In a randomized order they were subjected to tactile and painful stimulation. The three GSR variables conductance baseline level, number of waves per second and mean amplitude of the waves were recorded together with the behavioural and physiological variables of PIPP. RESULTS: The GSR variables number of waves and amplitude of the waves increased more during painful stimulation than during tactile stimulation, as did also the PIPP score. Receiver operating characteristic curves analysis revealed no significant differences between the studied methods. CONCLUSION: GSR can differentiate painful from tactile stimulation, but more research is needed to achieve a clinically useful application.
Authors: Wuyi Wang; Simon Zhornitsky; Clara S-P Li; Thang M Le; Jutta Joormann; Chiang-Shan R Li Journal: J Affect Disord Date: 2019-05-27 Impact factor: 4.839
Authors: Roberta Sclocco; Florian Beissner; Gaelle Desbordes; Jonathan R Polimeni; Lawrence L Wald; Norman W Kettner; Jieun Kim; Ronald G Garcia; Ville Renvall; Anna M Bianchi; Sergio Cerutti; Vitaly Napadow; Riccardo Barbieri Journal: Philos Trans A Math Phys Eng Sci Date: 2016-05-13 Impact factor: 4.226
Authors: Busra T Susam; Murat Akcakaya; Hooman Nezamfar; Damaris Diaz; Xiaojing Xu; Virginia R de Sa; Kenneth D Craig; Jeannie S Huang; Matthew S Goodwin Journal: Annu Int Conf IEEE Eng Med Biol Soc Date: 2018-07
Authors: Christiana N Oji-Mmuo; Rebecca R Speer; Fumiyuki C Gardner; Megan M Marvin; Alexia C Hozella; Kim K Doheny Journal: J Matern Fetal Neonatal Med Date: 2019-04-09
Authors: Christiana N Oji-Mmuo; Eric J Michael; Jacqueline McLatchy; Mary M Lewis; Julie E Becker; Kim Kopenhaver Doheny Journal: Acta Paediatr Date: 2015-12-23 Impact factor: 2.299
Authors: Nicola Elisabeth Schubach; Katrin Mehler; Bernhard Roth; Eckhard Korsch; Rainhard Laux; Dominique Singer; Axel von der Wense; András Treszl; Christoph Hünseler Journal: Eur J Pediatr Date: 2016-03-30 Impact factor: 3.183