Hospital pediatrics · 2026
Neonatal Capillary Blood Sampling Procedure: A Scoping Review.
СтатьяНазвание и аннотация: Перевод в очереди
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Douglas Janene, August Deanne, Cunninghame Jacqueline, Roberts Natasha
Аннотация
BACKGROUND: Neonatal capillary blood sampling is common and painful, but procedural elements (eg, warming) appear inconsistent, with the impact on sampling effectiveness and procedural best practice unclear.
OBJECTIVE: To identify existing procedural practices and knowledge gaps to inform best practice for neonatal capillary blood sampling and guide procedural use in future research.
METHODS: The Joanna Briggs Institute methodology was used, with sources including peer-reviewed articles between 2005 and 2025 from PubMed, CINAHL Complete (EBSCO host), and Cochrane Library, focused on the neonatal population. Screening was completed in Covidence by 2 independent authors (third for conflicts) and extracted into Airtable with results reported descriptively.
RESULTS: Of the 2846 articles identified, 73 met criteria, originating predominantly from the European region (n = 36). Most were randomized controlled trials (n = 47), followed by observational studies (n = 9) and expert opinion (n = 6). Primary outcomes reported (n = 63/73) were predominantly pain assessments (n = 46) and blood sample quality (n = 14). Procedural practices were inconsistently reported across articles-eg, decontamination (33/73 [45%]), supportive care (38/73 [52%]), and lancing device type used (40/73 [55%]). Within articles reporting roles (n = 60/73), nurses/midwives were commonly the proceduralist (n = 30 [50%]), followed by a comforter role (n = 14 [23%]), in addition to parents (n = 20 [33%]). Successful procedural characteristics (12/73) were reported as (1) sufficient blood (1 puncture/incision; n = 5), (2) minimal squeezing/free-flowing blood droplets (n = 3), (3) no hemolysis/adequate blood (n = 2), (4) no hemolysis/free-flowing blood (n = 1), and (5) minimal squeezing/procedure time (n = 1).
CONCLUSION: Inconsistent reporting on procedural elements and device use impedes procedural best-practice evolution and should be a priority of future research.
OBJECTIVE: To identify existing procedural practices and knowledge gaps to inform best practice for neonatal capillary blood sampling and guide procedural use in future research.
METHODS: The Joanna Briggs Institute methodology was used, with sources including peer-reviewed articles between 2005 and 2025 from PubMed, CINAHL Complete (EBSCO host), and Cochrane Library, focused on the neonatal population. Screening was completed in Covidence by 2 independent authors (third for conflicts) and extracted into Airtable with results reported descriptively.
RESULTS: Of the 2846 articles identified, 73 met criteria, originating predominantly from the European region (n = 36). Most were randomized controlled trials (n = 47), followed by observational studies (n = 9) and expert opinion (n = 6). Primary outcomes reported (n = 63/73) were predominantly pain assessments (n = 46) and blood sample quality (n = 14). Procedural practices were inconsistently reported across articles-eg, decontamination (33/73 [45%]), supportive care (38/73 [52%]), and lancing device type used (40/73 [55%]). Within articles reporting roles (n = 60/73), nurses/midwives were commonly the proceduralist (n = 30 [50%]), followed by a comforter role (n = 14 [23%]), in addition to parents (n = 20 [33%]). Successful procedural characteristics (12/73) were reported as (1) sufficient blood (1 puncture/incision; n = 5), (2) minimal squeezing/free-flowing blood droplets (n = 3), (3) no hemolysis/adequate blood (n = 2), (4) no hemolysis/free-flowing blood (n = 1), and (5) minimal squeezing/procedure time (n = 1).
CONCLUSION: Inconsistent reporting on procedural elements and device use impedes procedural best-practice evolution and should be a priority of future research.