Journals Library

An error occurred retrieving content to display, please try again.

Page not found (404)

Sorry - the page you requested could not be found.

Please choose a page from the navigation or try a website search above to find the information you need.

The trial was stopped early because of profound respiratory adverse effects, without evidence of analgesic benefit for procedural pain, from the administration of oral morphine to non-ventilated premature infants.

{{author}}{{author}}{{($index < metadata.AuthorsAndEtalArray.length-1) ? ',' : '.'}}

Vaneesha Monk, Fiona Moultrie, Caroline Hartley, Amy Hoskin, Gabrielle Green, Jennifer L Bell, Caz Stokes, Ed Juszczak, Jane Norman, Richard Rogers, Chetan Patel, Eleri Adams & Rebeccah Slater.

Vaneesha Monk 1,*,, Fiona Moultrie 1,, Caroline Hartley 1, Amy Hoskin 1, Gabrielle Green 1, Jennifer L Bell 2, Caz Stokes 3, Ed Juszczak 2, Jane Norman 4, Richard Rogers 5, Chetan Patel 6, Eleri Adams 7,, Rebeccah Slater 1,

1 Department of Paediatrics, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK
2 National Perinatal Epidemiology Unit, Nuffield Department of Population Health, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK
3 Support for the Sick Newborn and their Parents, Oxford, UK
4 Tommy’s Centre for Maternal and Fetal Health, MRC Centre for Reproductive Health, Queen’s Medical Research Institute, University of Edinburgh, Edinburgh, UK
5 Department of Anaesthetics, John Radcliffe Hospital, Oxford University Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, Oxford, UK
6 Department of Ophthalmology, John Radcliffe Hospital, Oxford University Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, Oxford, UK
7 Newborn Care Unit, John Radcliffe Hospital, Oxford University Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, Oxford, UK
* Corresponding author Email: vaneesha.monk@paediatrics.ox.ac.uk

Funding: {{metadata.Funding}}

{{metadata.Journal}} Volume: {{metadata.Volume}}, Issue: {{metadata.Issue}}, Published in {{metadata.PublicationDate | date:'MMMM yyyy'}}

https://doi.org/{{metadata.DOI}}

Citation: {{author}}{{ (($index < metadata.AuthorsArray.length-1) && ($index <=6)) ? ', ' : '' }}{{(metadata.AuthorsArray.length <= 6) ? '.' : '' }} {{(metadata.AuthorsArray.length > 6) ? 'et al.' : ''}} . {{metadata.JournalShortName}} {{metadata.PublicationDate | date:'yyyy'}};{{metadata.Volume}}({{metadata.Issue}})

Crossmark status check

Report Content

The full text of this issue is available as a PDF document from the Toolkit section on this page.

The full text of this issue is available as a PDF document from the Toolkit section on this page.

If you would like to receive a notification when this project publishes in the NIHR Journals Library, please submit your email address below.

 

Responses to this report

No responses have been published.

 

If you would like to submit a response to this publication, please do so using the form below:

Comments submitted to the NIHR Journals Library are electronic letters to the editor. They enable our readers to debate issues raised in research reports published in the Journals Library. We aim to post within 14 working days all responses that contribute substantially to the topic investigated, as determined by the Editors.  Non-relevant comments will be deleted.

Your name and affiliations will be published with your comment.

Once published, you will not have the right to remove or edit your response. The Editors may add, remove, or edit comments at their absolute discretion.

By submitting your response, you are stating that you agree to the terms & conditions