Nonpharmacological Management of Procedural Pain in Infants and Young Children: An Abridged Cochrane Review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Acute pain and distress during medical procedures are commonplace for young children. OBJECTIVE: To assess the efficacy of nonpharmacological interventions for acute procedural pain in children up to three years of age. METHODS: Study inclusion criteria were: participants <3 years of age, involved in a randomized controlled or crossover trial, and use of a 'no treatment' control group (51 studies; n=3396). Additional studies meeting all criteria except for study design (eg, use of active control group) were qualitatively described (n=20). RESULTS: For every intervention, data were analyzed separately according to age group (preterm-born, term-born neonate and older infant ⁄ young child) and type of pain response (pain reactivity, immediate pain-related regulation). The largest standardized mean differences (SMD) for pain reactivity were as follows: sucking-related interventions (preterm: -0.42 [95% CI -0.68 to -0.15]; neonate -1.45 [CI -2.34 to -0.57]), kangaroo care (preterm -1.12 [95% CI -2.04 to -0.21]), and swaddling ⁄ facilitated tucking (preterm -0.97 [95% CI -1.63 to -0.31]). For immediate pain-related regulation, the largest SMDs were: sucking-related interventions (preterm -0.38 [95% CI -0.59 to -0.17]; neonate -0.90 [CI -1.54 to -0.25]), kangaroo care 0.77 (95% CI -1.50 to -0.03]), swaddling ⁄ facilitated tucking (preterm -0.75 [95% CI -1.14 to -0.36]), and rocking ⁄ holding (neonate -0.75 [95% CI -1.20 to -0.30]). The presence of significant heterogeneity limited confidence in nonsignificant findings for certain other analyses. CONCLUSIONS: Although a number of nonpharmacological treatments have sufficient evidence supporting their efficacy with preterm infants and healthy neonates, no treatments had sufficient evidence to support efficacy with healthy older infants ⁄ young children.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.012 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.011 | 0.012 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".