MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Sucrose for analgesia in newborn infants undergoing painful procedures

2010· reference-entry· en· W4239079633 on OpenAlexaff
Bonnie Stevens, Janet Yamada, Arne Ohlsson

Bibliographic record

VenueCochrane Database of Systematic Reviews · 2010
Typereference-entry
Languageen
Field
Topic
Canadian institutionsUniversity of TorontoHospital for Sick Children
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicinePacifierCryingAnesthesiaConfidence intervalHeelHeart rateRandomized controlled trialBreastfeedingPediatricsSurgeryInternal medicineBlood pressure

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Administration of oral sucrose with and without non-nutritive sucking is frequently used as a 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 STRATEGY: The standard methods of the Cochrane Neonatal Collaborative Review Group were used. SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomized controlled trials in which term and/or preterm neonates (postnatal age maximum of 28 days corrected for postmenstrual age) received sucrose for procedural pain. Control conditions included water, pacifier, positioning/containing or breastfeeding. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: The main outcome measures were physiological and/or behavioural pain indicators and/or composite pain scores. A weighted mean difference (WMD) with 95% confidence intervals (CI) using the fixed effects model was reported for continuous outcome measures. MAIN RESULTS: Forty-four studies enrolling 3,496 infants were included. Results from only a few studies could be combined in meta-analyses. Sucrose significantly reduced duration of total crying time (seconds) [WMD -39.26 (95% CI -44.29, -34.24), 88 neonates], but did not reduce duration of first cry (seconds) during heel lance [WMD -8.99 (95% CI -20.07, 2.10), 192 neonates]. No significant differences were found for percent change in heart rate from baseline at one minute [WMD 0.90 (95% CI -5.81, 7.61), 86 neonates] and three minutes [WMD -6.20 (95% CI -15.27, 2.88), 86 neonates] post-heel lance, or for mean heart rate at three minutes post-heel lance [WMD -0.98 (95% CI -8.29, 6.32), 154 neonates]. Oxygen saturation (%) was significantly lower in infants given sucrose during ROP examination compared to controls [WMD -2.58 (95% CI -4.94, - 0.23), 62 neonates]. Infants given sucrose post-heel lance had significantly lower PIPP scores at 30 seconds [WMD -1.64 (95% CI -2.47, - 0.81), 220 neonates] and 60 seconds [WMD -2.05 (95% CI -3.08, -1.02), 195 neonates]. For ROP exams, sucrose did not significantly reduce PIPP scores [WMD -0.65 (95% CI -1.88, 0.59), 82 neonates]. There were no differences in adverse effects between sucrose and control groups. 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 (e.g. behavioural, physical) and pharmacologic interventions is needed. Sucrose use in extremely low birth-weight and unstable and/or ventilated neonates needs to be addressed.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.015
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.055
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch, Meta-epidemiology (narrow), Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Systematic review · Consensus signal: Systematic review
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.132
Threshold uncertainty score0.999

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0150.055
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0110.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.002
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0020.000
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.074
GPT teacher head0.358
Teacher spread0.284 · 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; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.

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

Citations112
Published2010
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCochrane Database of Systematic ReviewsFrench-language works237,207