Non-nutritive sucking for promoting physiologic stability and nutrition in preterm infants
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Non-nutritive sucking is used during gavage feeding and in the transition from gavage to breast/bottle feeding in preterm infants. The rationale for this intervention is that non-nutritive sucking facilitates the development of sucking behaviour and improves digestion of enteral feedings. Non-nutritive sucking has been considered to be a benign intervention, although it has the potential to have a negative effect on breastfeeding or on the incidence of later oral aversion.To determine whether non-nutritive sucking (NNS) in preterm infants influences: a) weight gain, b) energy intake, c) heart rate, d) oxygen saturation, e) length of hospital stay, f) intestinal transit time, g) age at full oral feeds, or h) any other clinically relevant outcomes.MEDLINE and CINAHL databases back to 1976 and The Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL, The Cochrane Library, Issue 1, 2005) were searched. The EMBASE database was added to the search strategy for 2005. Reference lists/bibliographies of relevant articles and reviews were also searched. A comprehensive list of relevant articles was sent to two major authors in this area. They were asked if they knew of any other published or unpublished studies relevant to the area that had not been included in the original list.All trials utilizing experimental or quasi-experimental designs in which non-nutritive sucking in preterm infants was compared to no provision of non-nutritive sucking. Measured clinically relevant outcomes. Reports were in English or a language for which a translator was available.Computerized searches were conducted by both reviewers. All potentially relevant titles and abstracts identified by either reviewer were extracted. All retrieved articles were assessed for relevance independently by each reviewer, based on a pre-determined set of criteria. The reference lists/bibliographies of each article were reviewed independently for additional relevant titles and were also retrieved and assessed for relevance. Articles that met all relevance criteria were then assessed for methodologic quality based on a predetermined set of criteria. Those articles judged to have the appropriate quality by both reviewers were included in the analysis.Data were extracted independently by the two authors. No subgroup analyses were performed because of the small number of studies related to the relevant outcomes.This review consisted of 21 studies, 15 of which were randomized controlled trials. NNS was found to decrease significantly the length of hospital stay in preterm infants. The review did not reveal a consistent benefit of NNS with respect to other major clinical variables (weight gain, energy intake, heart rate, oxygen saturation, intestinal transit time, age at full oral feeds and behavioral state). The review identified other positive clinical outcomes of NNS: transition from tube to bottle feeds and better bottle feeding performance. No negative outcomes were reported in any of the studies.This review found a significant decrease in length of stay in preterm infants receiving a NNS intervention. The review did not reveal a consistent benefit of NNS with respect to other major clinical variables (weight gain, energy intake, heart rate, oxygen saturation, intestinal transit time, age at full oral feeds and behavioral state). The review identified other positive clinical outcomes of NNS: transition from tube to bottle feeds and better bottle feeding performance. No negative outcomes were reported in any of the studies. There were also a number of limitations of the presently available evidence related to the design of the studies, outcome variability, and lack of long-term data. Based on the available evidence, NNS in preterm infants would appear to have some clinical benefit. It does not appear to have any short-term negative effects. In view of the fact that there are no long-term data, further investigations are recommended. In order to facilitate meta-analysis of these data, future research in this area should involve outcome measures consistent with those used in previous studies. In addition, published reports should include all relevant data.
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 | 0.003 | 0.011 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.008 | 0.006 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.013 | 0.001 |
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".