Breastfeeding or Breastmilk to Alleviate Procedural Pain in Neonates: A Systematic Review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: To (1) compare breastfeeding with control (placebo, no treatment, sucrose, glucose, pacifiers, or positioning) and (2) compare breastmilk with control for procedural pain in neonates. METHODS: Systematic review and meta-analyses of randomized and quasi-randomized trials of breastfeeding or supplemental breastmilk for procedural pain in neonates was carried out on studies identified from electronic databases and hand searches without language restrictions. The methodological quality of the trials was assessed according to the Neonatal Review Group of Cochrane Collaboration. RESULTS: Eleven eligible studies were identified. Marked heterogeneity in control intervention and pain assessment measures was noted. The breastfeeding group had significantly less increase in the heart rate, reduced proportion of crying time and reduced duration of crying compared to the swaddled or pacifier group. Premature Infant Pain Profile scores were lower in the breastfeeding group when compared to the placebo and the group positioned in mother's arms, but were not different compared to the no-treatment and the glucose groups. Neonates in the supplemental breastmilk group had a significantly less increase in the heart rate and Neonatal Facial Coding Score but no significant difference in the duration of crying time and oxygen saturation change compared to the placebo. CONCLUSIONS: If available, breastfeeding or breastmilk should be used to alleviate pain in neonates undergoing painful procedure compared to placebo, positioning, or no intervention. Administration of glucose/sucrose had a similar effectiveness as breastfeeding for reducing pain. The effectiveness of breastmilk for repeated painful procedures is not established, and further research is needed.
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 | 0.007 | 0.022 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.010 | 0.010 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.005 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".