Sucrose for analgesia in newborn infants undergoing painful procedures
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
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 and safety of oral sucrose for relieving procedural pain in neonates. SEARCH METHODS: We used the standard methods of the Cochrane Neonatal Review Group. Electronic and manual searches were performed in November 2011 for published randomised controlled trials (RCTs) in MEDLINE (1950 to November 2011), EMBASE (1980 to 2011), CINAHL (1982 to November 2011) and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (The Cochrane Library). We did not impose language restrictions. SELECTION CRITERIA: RCTs in which term, preterm, or both term and preterm neonates (postnatal age maximum of 28 days after reaching 40 weeks' postmenstrual age) received sucrose for procedural pain. Control conditions included no treatment, water, pacifier, positioning/containing or breastfeeding. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Main outcome measures were physiological, behavioural, or both pain indicators with or without composite pain scores. A mean difference (MD) with 95% confidence intervals (CI) using the fixed-effect model was reported for continuous outcome measures. Trial quality was assessed as per The Cochrane Collaboration MAIN RESULTS: Fifty-seven studies enrolling 4730 infants were included. Results from only a few studies could be combined in meta-analyses. When Premature Infant Pain Profile (PIPP) scores were pooled, sucrose groups had significantly lower scores at 30 seconds (weighted mean difference (WMD) -1.76; 95% CI -2.54 to - 0.97; 4 trials; 264 neonates] and 60 seconds (WMD -2.05; 95% CI -3.08 to -1.02; 3 trials' 195 neonates) post-heel lance. For retinopathy of prematurity (ROP) examinations, sucrose did not significantly reduce PIPP scores (WMD -0.65; 95% CI -1.88 to 0.59; 3 trials; 82 neonates). There were no differences in adverse effects between sucrose and control groups. Sucrose significantly reduced duration of total crying time (WMD -39 seconds; 95% CI -44 to -34; 2 trials; 88 neonates), but did not reduce duration of first cry during heel lance (WMD -9 seconds; 95% CI -20 to 2; 3 trials; 192 neonates). Oxygen saturation (%) was significantly lower in infants given sucrose during ROP examination compared to controls (WMD -2.6; 95% CI -4.9 to - 0.2; 2 trials; 62 neonates). Results of individual trials that could not be incorporated in meta-analyses supported these findings. The effects of sucrose on long-term neurodevelopmental outcomes are unknown. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Sucrose is safe and effective for reducing procedural pain from single events. An optimal dose could not be identified due to inconsistency in effective sucrose dosage among studies. Further investigation on repeated administration of sucrose in neonates and the use of sucrose in combination with other non-pharmacological and 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.
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 enseignantsNi 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.
Scores Codex et Gemma par catégorie
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,017 | 0,043 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,002 | 0,001 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,023 | 0,002 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,002 | 0,002 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Communication savante | 0,000 | 0,001 |
| Science ouverte | 0,002 | 0,000 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,000 | 0,005 |
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.
score_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 découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; les deux têtes enseignantes s’accordent sur ce qui est montré ici.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».