Search

Background This study was conducted to evaluate the pain perceptions of newborns during the hepatitis B (HBV) vaccinations performed in the facilitated tucking position and the classical holding position, respectively. Methods The randomized controlled experimental study was conducted between 1 September 2014 and 30 December 2014 at the neonatal intensive care unit of a Turkish university hospital. One group of infants was held in the facilitated tucking position (the treatment group; n = 30) during HBV vaccination; infants in the other group were held in the classical holding position (the control group; n = 30) during HBV vaccination. The Neonatal Infant Pain Scale (NIPS) scores of the infants in the treatment and control groups were compared during procedure. Also, the infants’ physiological parameters were compared before, during, and after the procedure. Descriptive statistics, a chi-square test, and an independent samples t-test were used to assess the data. Results The mean pain scores of infants vaccinated in the facilitated tucking position (2.83 ± 1.18) were significantly statistically lower than the scores of infants vaccinated in the classical holding position (6.47 ± 1.07) (p

Any figure in a research article will typically represent only a small portion of the total data gained by a researcher for that experiment, and it is therefore key that the figure accurately reflects what was found overall. Furthermore, if individual observations form clusters with differing mean properties, those individual observations would not represent independent samples from the populations being compared. In this example, the question of how to fairly represent and treat image data is addressed.

Background Previous studies have proposed a simple product-based estimator for calculating exposure-specific risks (ESR), but the methodology has not been rigorously evaluated. The goal of our study was to evaluate the existing methodology for calculating the ESR, propose an improved point estimator, and propose variance estimates that will allow the calculation of confidence intervals (CIs). Methods We conducted a simulation study to test the performance of two estimators and their associated confidence intervals: 1) current (simple product-based estimator) and 2) proposed revision (revised product-based estimator). The first method for ESR estimation was based on multiplying a relative risk (RR) of disease given a certain exposure by an overall risk of disease. The second method, which is proposed in this paper, was based on estimates of the risk of disease in the unexposed. We then multiply the updated risk by the RR to get the revised product-based estimator. A log-based variance was calculated for both estimators. Also, a binomial-based variance was calculated for the revised product-based estimator. 95% CIs were calculated based on these variance estimates. Accuracy of point estimators was evaluated by comparing observed relative bias (percent deviation from the true estimate). Interval estimators were evaluated by coverage probabilities and expected length of the 95% CI, given coverage. We evaluated these estimators across a wide range of exposure probabilities, disease probabilities, relative risks, and sample sizes. Results We observed more bias and lower coverage probability when using the existing methodology. The revised product-based point estimator exhibited little observed relative bias (max: 4.0%) compared to the simple product-based estimator (max: 93.9%). Because the simple product-based estimator was biased, 95% CIs around this estimate exhibited small coverage probabilities. The 95% CI around the revised product-based estimator from the log-based variance provided better coverage in most situations. Conclusion The currently accepted simple product-based method was only a reasonable approach when the exposure probability is small (< 0.05) and the RR is ≤ 3.0. The revised product-based estimator provides much improved accuracy.