Affiliation:
1. Department of Nursing, Faculty of Life Sciences Kumamoto University Kumamoto Japan
2. Department of Midwifery and Women's Health, Division of Health Sciences and Nursing, Graduate School of Medicine The University of Tokyo Tokyo Japan
3. Global Health Nursing, Graduate School of Nursing Science St. Luke's International University Tokyo Japan
4. Tokyo Foundation for Policy Research Tokyo Japan
5. Department of Nursing Science, Graduate School of Biomedical and Health Sciences Hiroshima University Hiroshima Japan
Abstract
AbstractAimWe conducted a meta‐analysis comparing the invasiveness of automatic lancet devices, which can collect adequate amount of blood at shallow puncture depths, with conventional manual lance devices (lancet or needle) to statistically identify less invasive instruments for neonatal heel lance.MethodsWe searched PubMed, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), CINAHL, and Ichushi databases for studies comparing the invasiveness between automatic lancet and manual lancet or needle in term and preterm neonates in neonatal intensive care unit.ResultsThis review included 9 out of 449 searched articles, with 673 neonates. Automatic lancet had significantly lower pain scores (standardised mean difference: −2.0, 95% confidence interval: −3.3 to −0.7), heart rate (mean difference: −8.0, 95% confidence interval: −13.8 to −2.1), cry duration (mean difference: −21.5, 95% confidence interval: −32.5 to −10.4), number of punctures (mean difference: −0.6, 95% confidence interval: −1.1 to −0.2), and duration of procedures (mean difference: −37.7, 95% confidence interval: −75.2 to −0.2) than manual lancet or needle. Furthermore, peripheral oxygen saturation was significantly higher in automatic lancet than in manual lancet or needle (mean difference: 4.5, 95% confidence interval: 0.5–8.5).ConclusionAutomatic heel lancet devices were less invasive than manual heel lance devices (lancet or needle).
Funder
Japan Society for the Promotion of Science