MétaCan
Menu
Retour à la cohorte
Enregistrement W2918104220 · doi:10.1002/14651858.cd001069

Sucrose for analgesia in newborn infants undergoing painful procedures

2001· review· en· W2918104220 sur OpenAlexaff
Bonnie Stevens, Janet Yamada, Arne Ohlsson

Notice bibliographique

RevueCochrane Database of Systematic Reviews · 2001
Typereview
Langueen
Domaine
Thématique
Établissements canadiensWomen's College HospitalMount Sinai Hospital
Organismes subventionnairesnon disponible
Mots-clésMedicineBlindingPlaceboRandomized controlled trialVenipuncturePacifierCochrane LibraryCryingMEDLINERandomizationPhysical therapyAnesthesiaPediatricsBreastfeedingSurgeryAlternative medicine

Résumé

récupéré en direct d'OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Management of pain for neonates is less than optimal. The administration of sucrose with and without non-nutritive sucking (pacifiers) has been the most frequently studied non-pharmacological intervention for relief of procedural pain in neonates. OBJECTIVES: To determine the efficacy, effect of dose, and safety of sucrose for relieving procedural pain as assessed by physiologic and/or behavioural indicators. SEARCH STRATEGY: Standard methods as per the Neonatal Collaborative Review Group. A MEDLINE search was carried out for relevant randomized controlled trials (RCTs) published from January 1966 - November 1, 1997; EMBASE from 1993-1997; Reference Update search on November 11, 1997 and search of the Cochrane Library Issue 4 on November 11, 1997. Key words and (MeSH) terms included, infant/newborn, pain, analgesia and sucrose. Personal files, bibliographies, the most recent relevant neonatal and pain journals and conference proceedings were searched manually. Unpublished studies were not included. Language restrictions were not imposed. SELECTION CRITERIA: RCTs in which term and/or preterm neonates undergoing heel lance, venepuncture or intramuscular injection (immunization) received sucrose or water/placebo or no intervention. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Trial quality was assessed according to the methods of the Neonatal Collaborative Review Group. Quality measures included; blinding of randomization, blinding of intervention, completeness of follow up and blinding of outcome measurement. Data were abstracted and independently checked for accuracy by the two investigators. The inconsistency in outcome measures and differences in the statistical reporting of results made meta-analysis impossible. We were not able to identify two studies in which the same physiologic and/or behavioral outcomes following a noxious stimulus (heel-lance, venepuncture, intramuscular injection) were measured and reported in an identical fashion using means and standard deviations (or standard errors). The results are therefore reported for each accepted study separately. MAIN RESULTS: Fifteen studies were identified for possible inclusion in this systematic review. Five studies were excluded; three RCTs were excluded as in these trials the number of infants randomized to treatment vs. placebo groups were not reported; one study was not an RCT, and in one RCT the neonates did not undergo a painful procedure. Ten RCTs were included in this review. Sucrose in a wide range of dosages was generally found to decrease univariate physiologic (heart rate) and behavioural (the mean percent time crying, total cry duration, duration of first cry, and facial action) pain indicators and multivariate [Premature Infant Pain Profile (PIPP)] pain outcomes in neonates undergoing heelstick or venepuncture. An optimal dose of sucrose to reduce pain associated with procedures in preterm and term neonates could not be identified through this systematic review. REVIEWER'S CONCLUSIONS: Sucrose reduces physiologic and/or behavioral indicators of stress/pain in neonates following procedural pain stimuli (heel lance, venepuncture, immunization). There was inconsistency in the dose of sucrose that was effective and an optimal dose to be used in preterm and/or term infants could not be identified. Considerations for future research are to describe the painful procedure and intervention in detail, to use appropriate sample size to show a statistically significant reduction in pain, to use a multidimensional conceptualization of pain, to select outcome measures that are reliable and valid pain indicators and to account for the variation in the infant's response and context in which the pain is experienced. The use of repeated administrations of sucrose in neonates needs to be investigated. Use of sucrose in neonates that are very low birth weight, unstable and/or ventilated also needs to be addressed. (ABSTRACT TRUNCATED)

Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.

Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier

Prédiction distillée sur la base complète

Imitation des enseignants

Ni prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Apprise à partir de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Gemma. Le mode candidate est l'union des têtes enseignantes seuillées; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont ni des étiquettes humaines ni des étiquettes directes de modèles de pointe.

score de la tête « metaresearch » (Codex)0,020
score de la tête « metaresearch » (Gemma)0,043
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aStatut de validation: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Catégories candidatesMétarecherche, Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict), Méta-épidémiologie (sens large), Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger)
Catégories consensuellesMéta-épidémiologie (sens strict)
DomaineSignal candidat: aucune · Signal consensuel: aucune
Devis d'étudeSignal candidat: Revue systématique · Signal consensuel: Revue systématique
GenreSignal candidat: Synthèse · Signal consensuel: Synthèse
Score de désaccord entre enseignants0,335
Score d'incertitude au seuil0,999

Scores Codex et Gemma par catégorie

CatégorieCodexGemma
Métarecherche0,0200,043
Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict)0,0020,002
Méta-épidémiologie (sens large)0,0230,003
Bibliométrie0,0020,004
Études des sciences et des technologies0,0000,000
Communication savante0,0000,001
Science ouverte0,0020,000
Intégrité de la recherche0,0010,001
Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger)0,0000,002

Scores machine (provisoires)

Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.

Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.

Tête enseignante Opus0,133
Tête enseignante GPT0,407
Écart entre enseignants0,274 · la distance entre les deux têtes enseignantes sur ce seul travail
Statut de validationscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découle

Classification

machine, non validée

Prédiction automatique; les deux têtes enseignantes s’accordent sur ce qui est montré ici.

Devis d'étudeRevue systématique
Domainenon disponible
GenreSynthèse

Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».

En bref

Citations69
Publié2001
Routes d'admission1
Résumé présentoui

Explorer davantage

Même revueCochrane Database of Systematic ReviewsTravaux en français237 207