MétaCan
Menu
Retour à la cohorte
Enregistrement W4234452990 · doi:10.1002/14651858.cd004950.pub2

Breastfeeding or breast milk for procedural pain in neonates

2006· review· en· W4234452990 sur OpenAlexaff
Prakesh S. Shah, Lucia Liz Aliwalas, Vibhuti Shah

Notice bibliographique

RevueCochrane Database of Systematic Reviews · 2006
Typereview
Langueen
Domaine
Thématique
Établissements canadiensUniversity of Toronto
Organismes subventionnairesnon disponible
Mots-clésMedicineBreastfeedingCochrane LibraryRandomized controlled trialMEDLINECINAHLBreast painPhysical therapyBreast feedingBreast milkPediatricsPsychological interventionBreast cancerInternal medicineNursing

Résumé

récupéré en direct d'OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Physiological changes brought about by pain may contribute to the development of morbidity in neonates. Clinical studies have shown reduction in the changes in physiological parameters and pain score measurements following pre-emptive analgesic administration in situations where the neonate is experiencing pain or stress. Nonpharmacological measures (such as holding, swaddling, breastfeeding) and pharmacological measures (such as acetaminophen, sucrose and opioids) have been used for this purpose. OBJECTIVES: The primary objective of this review 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, type of painful procedure, gestational age and the amount of supplemental breast milk given. SEARCH STRATEGY: A literature search was performed using MEDLINE (1966 - Feb 2006), EMBASE (1980 - Feb 2006), CINAHL (1982 - Feb 2006), Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (Issue 4, 2005 of Cochrane Library), abstracts from the annual meetings of the Society for Pediatric Research (1994 - 2006) and major pediatric pain conference proceedings. No language restrictions were applied. SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomized or quasi-randomized controlled trials 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: The methodological quality of the trials was assessed using the information provided in the studies and by personal communication with the authors. Data on relevant outcomes were extracted and the effect size was estimated and reported as relative risk (RR), risk difference (RD) and weighted mean difference (MD) as appropriate. MAIN RESULTS: Eleven eligible studies were identified. Marked heterogeneity in terms of control intervention and pain assessment measures were noted among the studies. Neonates in the breastfeeding group had statistically significantly less increase in the heart rate, reduced proportion of crying time and reduced duration of crying compared to swaddled group or pacifier group. Neonates in the breastfeeding group had a significant reduction in duration of crying compared to fasting (no intervention) group, but there was no significant difference when compared to glucose group. Premature Infant Pain Profile scores were significantly different between the breastfeeding group when compared to placebo group and the group positioned in mother's arms. However, these scores were not statistically significantly different in the breastfeeding group when compared to the no treatment group and the glucose group. Douleur Aigue Nouveau-ne scores were significantly different in the breastfeeding group when compared to the placebo group and the group positioned in mother's arms, but not when compared to the glucose group. Neonates in the supplemental breast milk group had significantly less increase in the heart rate and Neonatal Facial Coding Score compared to the placebo group. The differences in the duration of crying time and oxygen saturation change between supplemental breast milk group and the placebo group were not statistically significant. Neonates in the supplemental breast milk group had significantly higher increase in the heart rate changes and duration of crying time compared to glucose/sucrose group. No study was identified 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 compared to placebo, positioning or no intervention. Administration of glucose/sucrose had similar effectiveness as breastfeeding for reducing pain. The effectiveness of breast milk for repeated painful procedures is not established and further research is needed. These studies should include various control interventions including glucose/ sucrose and should target preterm neonates.

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)0,031
score de la tête « metaresearch » (Gemma)0,014
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 consensuellesMétarecherche, Méta-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 enseignants0,261
Score d'incertitude au seuil1,000

Scores Codex et Gemma par catégorie

CatégorieCodexGemma
Métarecherche0,0310,014
Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict)0,0020,001
Méta-épidémiologie (sens large)0,0240,003
Bibliométrie0,0010,002
Études des sciences et des technologies0,0000,000
Communication savante0,0000,001
Science ouverte0,0020,000
Intégrité de la recherche0,0000,001
Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger)0,0000,001

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 Opus0,116
Tête enseignante GPT0,384
Écart entre enseignants0,268 · 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

Citations131
Publié2006
Routes d'admission1
Résumé présentoui

Explorer davantage

Même revueCochrane Database of Systematic ReviewsTravaux en français237 207