-
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Aug 2016To successfully initiate and maintain breastfeeding for a longer duration, the World Health Organization's Ten Steps to Successful Breastfeeding recommends total... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
To successfully initiate and maintain breastfeeding for a longer duration, the World Health Organization's Ten Steps to Successful Breastfeeding recommends total avoidance of artificial teats or pacifiers for breastfeeding infants. Concerns have been raised that offering the pacifier instead of the breast to calm the infant may lead to less frequent episodes of breastfeeding and as a consequence may reduce breast-milk production and shorten duration of breastfeeding.
OBJECTIVES
To assess the effect of restricted versus unrestricted pacifier use in healthy full-term newborns whose mothers have initiated breastfeeding and intend to exclusively breastfeed, on the duration of breastfeeding, other breastfeeding outcomes and infant health.
SEARCH METHODS
We searched the Cochrane Pregnancy and Childbirth Group's Trials Register (30 June 2016) and reference lists of retrieved studies.
SELECTION CRITERIA
Randomised and quasi-randomised controlled trials comparing restricted versus unrestricted pacifier use in healthy full-term newborns who have initiated breastfeeding.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
Two review authors independently assessed trials for inclusion and risk of bias, extracted data and checked them for accuracy. The quality of the evidence was assessed using the GRADE approach.
MAIN RESULTS
We found three trials (involving 1915 babies) for inclusion in the review, but have included only two trials (involving 1302 healthy full-term breastfeeding infants) in the analysis. Meta-analysis of the two combined studies showed that pacifier use in healthy breastfeeding infants had no significant effect on the proportion of infants exclusively breastfed at three months (risk ratio (RR) 1.01; 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.96 to 1.07, two studies, 1228 infants), and at four months of age (RR 1.01; 95% CI 0.94 to 1.09, one study, 970 infants, moderate-quality evidence), and also had no effect on the proportion of infants partially breastfed at three months (RR 1.00; 95% CI 0.98 to 1.02, two studies, 1228 infants), and at four months of age (RR 0.99; 95% CI 0.97 to 1.02, one study, 970 infants). None of the included trials reported data on the other primary outcomes, i.e. duration of partial or exclusive breastfeeding, or secondary outcomes: breastfeeding difficulties (mastitis, cracked nipples, breast engorgement); infant's health (dental malocclusion, otitis media, oral candidiasis; sudden infant death syndrome (SIDS)); maternal satisfaction and level of confidence in parenting. One study reported that avoidance of pacifiers had no effect on cry/fuss behavior at ages four, six, or nine weeks and also reported no effect on the risk of weaning before age three months, however the data were incomplete and so could not be included for analysis.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
Pacifier use in healthy term breastfeeding infants, started from birth or after lactation is established, did not significantly affect the prevalence or duration of exclusive and partial breastfeeding up to four months of age. Evidence to assess the short-term breastfeeding difficulties faced by mothers and long-term effect of pacifiers on infants' health is lacking.
Topics: Breast Feeding; Female; Humans; Infant; Infant, Newborn; Lactation; Motivation; Pacifiers; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Time Factors
PubMed: 27572944
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD007202.pub4 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Jul 2016Administration of oral sucrose with and without non-nutritive sucking is the most frequently studied non-pharmacological intervention for procedural pain relief in... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
Administration of oral sucrose with and without non-nutritive sucking is the most frequently studied non-pharmacological intervention for procedural pain relief in neonates.
OBJECTIVES
To determine the efficacy, effect of dose, method of administration and safety of sucrose for relieving procedural pain in neonates as assessed by validated composite pain scores, physiological pain indicators (heart rate, respiratory rate, saturation of peripheral oxygen in the blood, transcutaneous oxygen and carbon dioxide (gas exchange measured across the skin - TcpO2, TcpCO2), near infrared spectroscopy (NIRS), electroencephalogram (EEG), or behavioural pain indicators (cry duration, proportion of time crying, proportion of time facial actions (e.g. grimace) are present), or a combination of these and long-term neurodevelopmental outcomes.
SEARCH METHODS
We used the standard methods of the Cochrane Neonatal. We performed electronic and manual literature searches in February 2016 for published randomised controlled trials (RCTs) in the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL; The Cochrane Library, Issue 1, 2016), MEDLINE (1950 to 2016), EMBASE (1980 to 2016), and CINAHL (1982 to 2016). We did not impose language restrictions.
SELECTION CRITERIA
RCTs in which term or preterm neonates (postnatal age maximum of 28 days after reaching 40 weeks' postmenstrual age), or both, received sucrose for procedural pain. Control interventions included no treatment, water, glucose, breast milk, breastfeeding, local anaesthetic, pacifier, positioning/containing or acupuncture.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
Our main outcome measures were composite pain scores (including a combination of behavioural, physiological and contextual indicators). Secondary outcomes included separate physiological and behavioural pain indicators. We reported a mean difference (MD) or weighted MD (WMD) with 95% confidence intervals (CI) using the fixed-effect model for continuous outcome measures. For categorical data we used risk ratio (RR) and risk difference. We assessed heterogeneity by the I(2) test. We assessed the risk of bias of included trials using the Cochrane 'Risk of bias' tool, and assessed the quality of the evidence using the GRADE system.
MAIN RESULTS
Seventy-four studies enrolling 7049 infants were included. Results from only a few studies could be combined in meta-analyses and for most analyses the GRADE assessments indicated low- or moderate-quality evidence. There was high-quality evidence for the beneficial effect of sucrose (24%) with non-nutritive sucking (pacifier dipped in sucrose) or 0.5 mL of sucrose orally in preterm and term infants: Premature Infant Pain Profile (PIPP) 30 s after heel lance WMD -1.70 (95% CI -2.13 to -1.26; I(2) = 0% (no heterogeneity); 3 studies, n = 278); PIPP 60 s after heel lance WMD -2.14 (95% CI -3.34 to -0.94; I(2) = 0% (no heterogeneity; 2 studies, n = 164). There was high-quality evidence for the use of 2 mL 24% sucrose prior to venipuncture: PIPP during venipuncture WMD -2.79 (95% CI -3.76 to -1.83; I(2) = 0% (no heterogeneity; 2 groups in 1 study, n = 213); and intramuscular injections: PIPP during intramuscular injection WMD -1.05 (95% CI -1.98 to -0.12; I(2) = 0% (2 groups in 1 study, n = 232). Evidence from studies that could not be included in RevMan-analyses supported these findings. Reported adverse effects were minor and similar in the sucrose and control groups. Sucrose is not effective in reducing pain from circumcision. The effectiveness of sucrose for reducing pain/stress from other interventions such as arterial puncture, subcutaneous injection, insertion of nasogastric or orogastric tubes, bladder catherization, eye examinations and echocardiography examinations are inconclusive. Most trials indicated some benefit of sucrose use but that the evidence for other painful procedures is of lower quality as it is based on few studies of small sample sizes. The effects of sucrose on long-term neurodevelopmental outcomes are unknown.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
Sucrose is effective for reducing procedural pain from single events such as heel lance, venipuncture and intramuscular injection in both preterm and term infants. No serious side effects or harms have been documented with this intervention. We could not identify an optimal dose due to inconsistency in effective sucrose dosage among studies. Further investigation of repeated administration of sucrose in neonates is needed. There is some moderate-quality evidence that sucrose in combination with other non-pharmacological interventions such as non-nutritive sucking is more effective than sucrose alone, but more research of this and sucrose in combination with pharmacological interventions is needed. Sucrose use in extremely preterm, unstable, ventilated (or a combination of these) neonates needs to be addressed. Additional research is needed to determine the minimally effective dose of sucrose during a single painful procedure and the effect of repeated sucrose administration on immediate (pain intensity) and long-term (neurodevelopmental) outcomes.
Topics: Administration, Oral; Analgesics; Humans; Infant, Newborn; Infant, Premature; Pain; Pain Measurement; Punctures; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Sucrose
PubMed: 27420164
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD001069.pub5 -
CoDAS Apr 2016Check if the type of nozzle, orthodontic or conventional, of pacifier and bottle have any influence on the changes found in the stomatognathic system caused by the... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
PURPOSE
Check if the type of nozzle, orthodontic or conventional, of pacifier and bottle have any influence on the changes found in the stomatognathic system caused by the maintenance of the sucking habit. Research Strategies: Through a systematic literature review with meta-analysis, performed from the databases Lilacs, Medline and Embase and Scholar Google, with the following key words in Portuguese and English: "malocclusion" + "Pacifiers "; "Malocclusion" + "Bottle Feeding"; "Malocclusion" + "Bottle feeding" beyond words "Orthodontic Beak" + "Conventional Beak".
SELECTION CRITERIA
We included studies that presented in their methods to compare groups who used pacifiers and/or bottle with conventional nozzle with groups using orthodontic nipple without temporal delimitation.
DATA ANALYSIS
The analysis of the article in its entirety was performed systematically, ordering the relevant results in the following categories: objective, method-case studies and evaluation, results, and conclusion.
RESULTS
Found 1,041 jobs, from the period 1969 to 2013, 848 jobs were excluded based on the exclusion criteria and another 174 that were repetitions. A total of 19 articles were read in full of which 4 articles met the proposed inclusion criteria, and three studies were included in the meta-analysis. These results show that there are no significant differences between the orthodontic and conventional nozzles on the implications of the stomatognathic system.
CONCLUSION
There is no way to conclude that there are differences as to the consequences to the stomatognathic system caused by conventional nozzles and orthodontic pacifier/bottle.
Topics: Bottle Feeding; Child; Child, Preschool; Equipment Design; Habits; Humans; Infant; Pacifiers; Risk Factors; Stomatognathic Diseases; Stomatognathic System; Sucking Behavior
PubMed: 27191883
DOI: 10.1590/2317-1782/20162015024 -
Revista de Saude Publica 2015To identify factors associated with exclusive breastfeeding in the first six months of life in Brazil. (Review)
Review
OBJECTIVE
To identify factors associated with exclusive breastfeeding in the first six months of life in Brazil.
METHODS
Systematic review of epidemiological studies conducted in Brazil with exclusive breastfeeding as outcome. Medline and LILACS databases were used. After the selection of articles, a hierarchical theoretical model was proposed according to the proximity of the variable to the outcome.
RESULTS
Of the 67 articles identified, we selected 20 cross-sectional studies and seven cohort studies, conducted between 1998 and 2010, comprising 77,866 children. We identified 36 factors associated with exclusive breastfeeding, being more often associated the distal factors: place of residence, maternal age and education, and the proximal factors: maternal labor, age of the child, use of a pacifier, and financing of primary health care.
CONCLUSIONS
The theoretical model developed may contribute to future research, and factors associated with exclusive breastfeeding may subsidize public policies on health and nutrition.
Topics: Brazil; Breast Feeding; Female; Gestational Age; Humans; Infant; Male; Maternal Age; Maternal Behavior; Models, Theoretical; Risk Factors; Socioeconomic Factors
PubMed: 26759970
DOI: 10.1590/S0034-8910.2015049005971 -
The Clinical Journal of Pain Oct 2015This systematic review assessed the effectiveness and safety of pharmacotherapy and combined interventions for reducing vaccine injection pain in individuals across the... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
This systematic review assessed the effectiveness and safety of pharmacotherapy and combined interventions for reducing vaccine injection pain in individuals across the lifespan.
DESIGN/METHODS
Electronic databases were searched for relevant randomized and quasi-randomized controlled trials. Self-reported pain and fear as well as observer-rated distress were critically important outcomes. Data were combined using standardized mean difference (SMD) or relative risk with 95% confidence intervals (CI).
RESULTS
Fifty-five studies that examined breastfeeding (which combines sweet-tasting solution, holding, and sucking), topical anesthetics, sweet-tasting solutions (sucrose, glucose), vapocoolants, oral analgesics, and combination of 2 versus 1 intervention were included. The following results report findings of analyses of critical outcomes with the largest number of participants. Compared with control, acute distress was lower for infants breastfed: (1) during vaccination (n=792): SMD -1.78 (CI, -2.35, -1.22) and (2) before vaccination (n=100): SMD -1.43 (CI, -2.14, -0.72). Compared with control/placebo, topical anesthetics showed benefit on acute distress in children (n=1424): SMD -0.91 (CI, -1.36, -0.47) and self-reported pain in adults (n=60): SMD -0.85 (CI, -1.38, -0.32). Acute and recovery distress was lower for children who received sucrose (n=2071): SMD -0.76 (CI, -1.19, -0.34) or glucose (n=818): SMD -0.69 (CI, -1.03, -0.35) compared with placebo/no treatment. Vapocoolants reduced acute pain in adults [(n=185), SMD -0.78 (CI, -1.08, -0.48)] but not children. Evidence from other needle procedures showed no benefit of acetaminophen or ibuprofen. The administration of topical anesthetics before and breastfeeding during vaccine injections showed mixed results when compared with topical anesthetics alone. There were no additive benefits of combining glucose and non-nutritive sucking (pacifier) compared with glucose or non-nutritive sucking (pacifier) alone or breastfeeding and sucrose compared with breastfeeding or sucrose alone.
CONCLUSIONS
Breastfeeding, topical anesthetics, sweet-tasting solutions, and combination of topical anesthetics and breastfeeding demonstrated evidence of benefit for reducing vaccine injection pain in infants and children. In adults, limited data demonstrate some benefit of topical anesthetics and vapocoolants.
Topics: Adult; Analgesics; Child; Humans; Injections; Needles; Pain; Pain Management; Vaccination
PubMed: 26201016
DOI: 10.1097/AJP.0000000000000281 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... May 2015Extensive evidence exists showing analgesic effects of sweet solutions for newborns and infants. It is less certain if the same analgesic effects exist for children one... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
Extensive evidence exists showing analgesic effects of sweet solutions for newborns and infants. It is less certain if the same analgesic effects exist for children one year to 16 years of age. This is an updated version of the original Cochrane review published in Issue 10, 2011 (Harrison 2011) titled Sweet tasting solutions for reduction of needle-related procedural pain in children aged one to 16 years.
OBJECTIVES
To determine the efficacy of sweet tasting solutions or substances for reducing needle-related procedural pain in children beyond one year of age.
SEARCH METHODS
Searches were run to the end of June 2014. We searched the following databases: the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, Database of Abstracts of Reviews of Effects (DARE), Cochrane Methodology Register, Health Technology Assessment, the NHS Economic Evaluation Database, MEDLINE, EMBASE, PsycINFO, and ACP Journal Club (all via OvidSP), and CINAH (via EBSCOhost). We applied no language restrictions.
SELECTION CRITERIA
Published or unpublished randomised controlled trials (RCT) in which children aged one year to 16 years, received a sweet tasting solution or substance for needle-related procedural pain. Control conditions included water, non-sweet tasting substances, pacifier, distraction, positioning/containment, breastfeeding, or no treatment.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
Outcome measures included crying duration, composite pain scores, physiological or behavioral pain indicators, self-report of pain or parental or healthcare professional-report of the child's pain. We reported mean differences (MD), weighted mean difference (WMD), or standardized mean difference (SMD) with 95% confidence intervals (CI) using fixed-effect or random-effects models as appropriate for continuous outcome measures. We reported risk ratio (RR), risk difference (RD), and the number needed to treat to benefit (NNTB) for dichotomous outcomes. We used the I(2) statistic to assess between-study heterogeneity.
MAIN RESULTS
We included one unpublished and seven published studies (total of 808 participants); four more studies and 478 more participants than the 2011 review. Six trials included young children aged one to four years receiving sucrose or candy lollypops for immunisation pain compared with water or no treatment. Usual care included topical anaesthetics, upright parental holding, and distraction. All studies were well designed blinded RCTs, however, five of the six studies had a high risk of bias based on small sample sizes.Two studies included school-aged children receiving sweet or unsweetened chewing gum before, or before and during, immunisation and blood collection. Both studies, conducted by the same author, had a high risk of bias based on small sample sizes.Results for the toddlers/pre-school children were conflicting. Duration of cry, using a random-effects model, was not significantly reduced by sweet taste (six trials, 520 children, WMD -15 seconds, 95% CI -54 to 24, I(2) = 94%).Composite pain score at time of first needle was reported in four studies (n = 121 children). The scores were not significantly different between the sucrose and control group (SMD -0.26, 95% CI -1.27 to 0.75, I(2) = 86%).A Children's Hospital of Eastern Ontario Pain Scale score > 4 was significantly less common in the sucrose group compared to the control group in one study (n = 472, RR 0.55, 95% CI 0.45 to 0.67; RD -0.29, 95% CI -0.37 to -0.20; NNTB 3, 95% CI 3 to 5; tests for heterogeneity not applicable.For school-aged children, chewing sweet gum before needle-related painful procedures (two studies, n = 111 children) or during the procedures (two studies, n = 103 children) did not significantly reduce pain scores. A comparison of the Faces Pain Scale scores in children chewing sweet gum before the procedures compared with scores of children chewing unsweetened gum revealed a WMD of -0.15 (95% CI -0.61 to 0.30). Similar results were found when comparing the chewing of sweet gum with unsweetened gum during the procedure (WMD 0.23, 95% CI -0.28 to 0.74). The Colored Analogue Scale for children chewing sweet gum compared to unsweetened gum before the procedure was not significantly different (WMD 0.24 (-0.69 to 1.18)) nor was it different when children chewed the gum during the procedure (WMD 0.86 (95% CI -0.12 to 1.83)). There was no heterogeneity for any of these analyses in school-aged children (I(2) = 0%).
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
Based on the eight studies included in this systematic review update, two of which were subgroups of small numbers of eligible toddlers from larger studies, and three of which were pilot RCTs with small numbers of participants, there is insufficient evidence of the analgesic effects of sweet tasting solutions or substances during acutely painful procedures in young children between one and four years of age. Further rigorously conducted, adequately powered RCTs are warranted in this population. Based on the two studies by the same author, there was no evidence of analgesic effects of sweet taste in school-aged children. As there are other effective evidence-based strategies available to use in this age group, further trials are not warranted.Despite the addition of four studies in this review, conclusions have not changed since the last version of the review.
Topics: Adolescent; Age Factors; Candy; Chewing Gum; Child; Child, Preschool; Humans; Infant; Needles; Pain; Pain Measurement; Punctures; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Sucrose; Sweetening Agents
PubMed: 25942496
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD008408.pub3 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Mar 2015Comforting behaviours, such as the use of pacifiers (dummies, soothers), blankets and finger or thumb sucking, are common in babies and young children. These comforting... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
Comforting behaviours, such as the use of pacifiers (dummies, soothers), blankets and finger or thumb sucking, are common in babies and young children. These comforting habits, which can be referred to collectively as 'non-nutritive sucking habits' (NNSHs), tend to stop as children get older, under their own impetus or with support from parents and carers. However, if the habit continues whilst the permanent dentition is becoming established, it can contribute to, or cause, development of a malocclusion (abnormal bite). A diverse variety of approaches has been used to help children with stopping a NNSH. These include advice, removal of the comforting object, fitting an orthodontic appliance to interfere with the habit, application of an aversive taste to the digit or behaviour modification techniques. Some of these interventions are easier to apply than others and less disturbing for the child and their parent; some are more applicable to a particular type of habit.
OBJECTIVES
The primary objective of the review was to evaluate the effects of different interventions for cessation of NNSHs in children. The secondary objectives were to determine which interventions work most quickly and are the most effective in terms of child and parent- or carer-centred outcomes of least discomfort and psychological distress from the intervention, as well as the dental measures of malocclusion (reduction in anterior open bite, overjet and correction of posterior crossbite) and cost-effectiveness.
SEARCH METHODS
We searched the following electronic databases: the Cochrane Oral Health Group Trials Register (to 8 October 2014), the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) (The Cochrane Library 2014, Issue 9), MEDLINE via OVID (1946 to 8 October 2014), EMBASE via OVID (1980 to 8 October 2014), PsycINFO via OVID (1980 to 8 October 2014) and CINAHL via EBSCO (1937 to 8 October 2014), the US National Institutes of Health Trials Register (Clinical Trials.gov) (to 8 October 2014) and the WHO International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (to 8 October 2014). There were no restrictions regarding language or date of publication in the searches of the electronic databases. We screened reference lists from relevant articles and contacted authors of eligible studies for further information where necessary.
SELECTION CRITERIA
Randomised or quasi-randomised controlled trials in children with a non-nutritive sucking habit that compared one intervention with another intervention or a no-intervention control group. The primary outcome of interest was cessation of the habit.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
We used standard methodological procedures expected by The Cochrane Collaboration. Three review authors were involved in screening the records identified; two undertook data extraction, two assessed risk of bias and two assessed overall quality of the evidence base. Most of the data could not be combined and only one meta-analysis could be carried out.
MAIN RESULTS
We included six trials, which recruited 252 children (aged two and a half to 18 years), but presented follow-up data on only 246 children. Digit sucking was the only NNSH assessed in the studies. Five studies compared single or multiple interventions with a no-intervention or waiting list control group and one study made a head-to-head comparison. All the studies were at high risk of bias due to major limitations in methodology and reporting. There were small numbers of participants in the studies (20 to 38 participants per study) and follow-up times ranged from one to 36 months. Short-term outcomes were observed under one year post intervention and long-term outcomes were observed at one year or more post intervention. Orthodontics appliance (with or without psychological intervention) versus no treatmentTwo trials that assessed this comparison evaluated our primary outcome of cessation of habit. One of the trials evaluated palatal crib and one used a mix of palatal cribs and arches. Both trials were at high risk of bias. The orthodontic appliance was more likely to stop digit sucking than no treatment, whether it was used over the short term (risk ratio (RR) 6.53, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.67 to 25.53; two trials, 70 participants) or long term (RR 5.81, 95% CI 1.49 to 22.66; one trial, 37 participants) or used in combination with a psychological intervention (RR 6.36, 95% CI 0.97 to 41.96; one trial, 32 participants). Psychological intervention versus no treatmentTwo trials (78 participants) at high risk of bias evaluated positive reinforcement (alone or in combination with gaining the child's co-operation) or negative reinforcement compared with no treatment. Pooling of data showed a statistically significant difference in favour of the psychological interventions in the short term (RR 6.16, 95% CI 1.18 to 32.10; I(2) = 0%). One study, with data from 57 participants, reported on the long-term effect of positive and negative reinforcement on sucking cessation and found a statistically significant difference in favour of the psychological interventions (RR 6.25, 95% CI 1.65 to 23.65). Head-to-head comparisonsOnly one trial demonstrated a clear difference in effectiveness between different active interventions. This trial, which had only 22 participants, found a higher likelihood of cessation of habit with palatal crib than palatal arch (RR 0.13, 95% CI 0.03 to 0.59).
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
This review found low quality evidence that orthodontic appliances (palatal arch and palatal crib) and psychological interventions (including positive and negative reinforcement) are effective at improving sucking cessation in children. There is very low quality evidence that palatal crib is more effective than palatal arch. This review has highlighted the need for high quality trials evaluating interventions to stop non-nutritive sucking habits to be conducted and the need for a consolidated, standardised approach to reporting outcomes in these trials.
Topics: Adolescent; Bedding and Linens; Child; Child, Preschool; Fingersucking; Humans; Malocclusion; Orthodontic Appliances; Orthodontic Appliances, Functional; Pacifiers; Reinforcement, Psychology; Stress, Psychological; Sucking Behavior
PubMed: 25825863
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD008694.pub2 -
Non-nutritive sucking for gastro-oesophageal reflux disease in preterm and low birth weight infants.The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Oct 2014Gastro-oesophageal reflux (GOR) is commonly diagnosed in the neonatal population (DiPietro 1994), and generally causes few or no symptoms (Vandenplas 2009). Conversely,... (Review)
Review
BACKGROUND
Gastro-oesophageal reflux (GOR) is commonly diagnosed in the neonatal population (DiPietro 1994), and generally causes few or no symptoms (Vandenplas 2009). Conversely, gastro-oesophageal reflux disease (GORD) refers to GOR that causes troublesome symptoms with or without complications such as damage to the oesophagus (Vandenplas 2009). Currently there is no evidence to support the range of measures recommended to help alleviate acid reflux experienced by infants. Non-nutritive sucking (NNS) has been used as an intervention to modulate neonatal state behaviours through its pacifying effects such as decrease infant fussiness and crying during feeds (Boiron 2007; Pickler 2004).
OBJECTIVES
To determine if NNS reduces GORD in preterm infants (less than 37 weeks' gestation) and low birth weight (less than 2500 g) infants, three months of age and less, with signs or symptoms suggestive of GORD, or infants with a diagnosis of GORD.
SEARCH METHODS
We performed computerised searches of the electronic databases of the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) (Issue 9, 2013), MEDLINE (1966 to September 2013), CINAHL (1982 to September 2013), and EMBASE (1988 to September 2013). We applied no language restrictions.
SELECTION CRITERIA
Controlled trials using random or quasi-random allocation of preterm infants (less than 37 weeks' gestation) and low birth weight (less than 2500 g) infants three months of age and less with signs or symptoms suggestive of GORD, or infants with a diagnosis of GORD. We included studies reported only by abstracts, and cluster and cross-over randomised trials.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
Two review authors independently reviewed and selected trials from searches, assessed and rated study quality and extracted relevant data. We identified two studies from the initial search. After further review, we excluded both studies.
MAIN RESULTS
We identified no studies examining the effects of NNS for GORD in preterm and low birth weight infants
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
There was insufficient evidence to determine the effectiveness of NNS for GORD. Adequately powered RCTs on the effect of NNS in preterm and low birth weight infants diagnosed with GORD are required.
Topics: Crying; Gastroesophageal Reflux; Humans; Infant, Low Birth Weight; Infant, Newborn; Infant, Premature; Infant, Premature, Diseases; Pacifiers
PubMed: 25315840
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD009817.pub2 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Dec 2012Physiological changes brought about by pain may contribute to the development of morbidity in neonates. Clinical studies have shown reduction in changes in physiological... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
Physiological changes brought about by pain may contribute to the development of morbidity in neonates. Clinical studies have shown reduction in changes in physiological parameters and pain score measurements following pre-emptive analgesic administration in situations where the neonate is experiencing pain or stress. Non-pharmacological measures (such as holding, swaddling and breastfeeding) and pharmacological measures (such as acetaminophen, sucrose and opioids) have been used for this purpose.
OBJECTIVES
The primary objective was to evaluate the effectiveness of breastfeeding or supplemental breast milk in reducing procedural pain in neonates. The secondary objective was to conduct subgroup analyses based on the type of control intervention, gestational age and the amount of supplemental breast milk given.
SEARCH METHODS
We performed a literature search using the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) (The Cochrane Library 2011, Issue 10), MEDLINE (1966 to February 2011), EMBASE (1980 to February 2011), CINAHL (1982 to February 2011), abstracts from the annual meetings of the Society for Pediatric Research (1994 to 2011), and major paediatric pain conference proceedings. We did not apply any language restrictions.
SELECTION CRITERIA
Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) or quasi-RCTs of breastfeeding or supplemental breast milk versus no treatment/other measures in neonates were eligible for inclusion in this review. The study must have reported on either physiologic markers of pain or validated pain scores.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
We assessed the methodological quality of the trials using the information provided in the studies and by personal communication with the authors. We extracted data on relevant outcomes, estimated the effect size and reported this as a risk ratio (RR), risk difference (RD) and weighted mean difference (MD) as appropriate.
MAIN RESULTS
Of twenty eligible studies, ten evaluated breastfeeding and ten evaluated supplemental breast milk. Sixteen studies analysed used heel lance and four used venepuncture as procedure. We noted marked heterogeneity in control intervention and pain assessment measures among the studies. Neonates in the breastfeeding group had statistically a significantly lower increase in heart rate, reduced proportion of crying time and reduced duration of first cry and total crying time compared to positioning (swaddled and placed in a crib), holding by mother, placebo, pacifier use, no intervention or oral sucrose group, or both.Premature Infant Pain Profile (PIPP) scores were significantly lower in the breastfeeding group compared to positioning, placebo or oral sucrose group, or both. However, there was no statistically significant difference in PIPP scores when compared to no intervention. Douleur Aigue Nouveau-ne scores (DAN) were significantly lower in the breastfeeding group compared to the placebo group and the group held in mother's arms, but not when compared to the glucose group. Neonatal Infant Pain Scale (NIPS) was significantly lower in the breastfeeding group compared to the no intervention group, but there was no difference when compared to the oral sucrose group. The Neonatal Facial Coding System (NFCS) was significantly lower in the breastfeeding group when compared to oral glucose, pacifier use, holding by mother and no intervention, but no difference was found when compared to formula feeding.Supplemental breast milk yielded variable results. Neonates in the supplemental breast milk group had a significantly lower increase in heart rate, a reduction in duration of crying and a lower NFCS compared to the placebo group. Neonates in the supplemental breast milk group had a significantly higher increase in heart rate changes when compared to the sucrose group. Sucrose (in any concentration, i.e. 12.5%, 20%, 25%) was found to reduce the duration of cry when compared to breast milk, as did glycine, pacifier use, rocking, or no intervention. Breast milk was found not to be effective in reducing validated and non-validated pain scores such as NIPS, NFCS, and DAN; only being significantly better when compared to placebo (water) or massage. We did not identify any study that has evaluated safety/effectiveness of repeated administration of breastfeeding or supplemental breast milk for pain relief.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
If available, breastfeeding or breast milk should be used to alleviate procedural pain in neonates undergoing a single painful procedure rather than placebo, positioning or no intervention. Administration of glucose/sucrose had similar effectiveness as breastfeeding for reducing pain. The effectiveness of breast milk for painful procedure should be studied in the preterm population, as there are currently a limited number of studies in the literature that have assessed it's effectiveness in this population.
Topics: Breast Feeding; Crying; Hemodynamics; Humans; Infant Care; Infant, Newborn; Milk, Human; Pacifiers; Pain; Phlebotomy; Punctures; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic
PubMed: 23235618
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD004950.pub3 -
BMJ Clinical Evidence Apr 2011Preterm or ill neonates may undergo 1 to 21 heel punctures or venepunctures a day. These punctures are likely to be painful. Heel punctures comprise 61% to 87% and... (Review)
Review
INTRODUCTION
Preterm or ill neonates may undergo 1 to 21 heel punctures or venepunctures a day. These punctures are likely to be painful. Heel punctures comprise 61% to 87% and venepunctures comprise 8% to 13% of the invasive procedures performed on ill infants. Analgesics are rarely given specifically for blood sampling procedures, but 5% to 19% of infants receive analgesia for other indications.
METHODS AND OUTCOMES
We conducted a systematic review and aimed to answer the following clinical question: What are the effects of interventions to reduce pain-related distress and morbidity during venepuncture in preterm or term babies aged under 12 months in a neonatal unit? We searched: Medline, Embase, The Cochrane Library, and other important databases up to June 2010 (Clinical Evidence reviews are updated periodically, please check our website for the most up-to-date version of this review). We included harms alerts from relevant organisations such as the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and the UK Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency (MHRA).
RESULTS
We found 20 systematic reviews, RCTs, or observational studies that met our inclusion criteria. We performed a GRADE evaluation of the quality of evidence for interventions.
CONCLUSIONS
In this systematic review we present information relating to the effectiveness and safety of the following interventions: oral sweet solutions; pacifiers; and topical anaesthetics (lidocaine-prilocaine cream, tetracaine).
Topics: Administration, Oral; Analgesics; Blood Specimen Collection; Double-Blind Method; Humans; Infant; Pain; Pain Measurement; Phlebotomy; Punctures; Tetracaine
PubMed: 21463539
DOI: No ID Found