MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Breastfeeding or breast milk for procedural pain in neonates

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

Bibliographic record

VenueCochrane Database of Systematic Reviews · 2006
Typereview
Languageen
Field
Topic
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineBreastfeedingCochrane LibraryRandomized controlled trialMEDLINECINAHLBreast painPhysical therapyBreast feedingBreast milkPediatricsPsychological interventionBreast cancerInternal medicineNursing

Abstract

fetched live from 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.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.005
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.019
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Systematic review · Consensus signal: Systematic review
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.008
Threshold uncertainty score0.028

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0050.019
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0040.002
Bibliometrics0.0040.004
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0030.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0080.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.116
GPT teacher head0.384
Teacher spread0.268 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designSystematic review
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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".

Quick stats

Citations131
Published2006
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCochrane Database of Systematic ReviewsFrench-language works237,207