MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Non-pharmacological management of infant and young child procedural pain

2011· review· en· W4251763335 on OpenAlexaff
Rebecca Pillai Riddell, Nicole Racine, Kara Turcotte, Lindsay S Uman, Rachel Horton, Laila Din Osmun, Sara Ahola Kohut, Jessica Hillgrove Stuart, Bonnie Stevens, Alanna Gerwitz‐Stern

Bibliographic record

VenueCochrane Database of Systematic Reviews · 2011
Typereview
Languageen
Field
Topic
Canadian institutionsHospital for Sick ChildrenIzaak Walton Killam Health CentreDalhousie UniversityYork University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicinePsycINFORandomized controlled trialMEDLINECochrane LibraryPsychological interventionConfidence intervalDistressPediatricsPhysical therapyPsychiatryClinical psychologyInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Infant acute pain and distress is commonplace. Infancy is a period of exponential development. Unrelieved pain and distress can have implications across the lifespan. OBJECTIVES: To assess the efficacy of non-pharmacological interventions for infant and child (up to three years) acute pain, excluding breastmilk, sucrose, and music. Analyses accounted for infant age (preterm, neonate, older) and pain response (pain reactivity, pain-related regulation). SEARCH STRATEGY: We searched CENTRAL in The Cochrane Library (2011, Issue 1), MEDLINE (1966 to April 2011), EMBASE (1980 to April 2011), PsycINFO (1967 to April 2011), Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature (1982 to 2011), Dissertation Abstracts International (1980 to 2011) and www.clinicaltrials.gov. We also searched reference lists and contacted researchers via electronic list-serves. SELECTION CRITERIA: Participants included infants from birth to three years. Only randomized controlled trials (RCTs) or RCT cross-overs that had a no-treatment control comparison were eligible for inclusion in the analyses. We examined studies that met all inclusion criteria except for study design (e.g. had an active control) to qualitatively contextualize results. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: We refined search strategies with three Cochrane-affiliated librarians. At least two review authors extracted and rated 51 articles. Study quality ratings were based on a scale by Yates and colleagues. We analyzed the standardized mean difference (SMD) using the generic inverse variance method. We also provided qualitative descriptions of 20 relevant but excluded studies. MAIN RESULTS: Fifty-one studies, with 3396 participants, were analyzed. The most commonly studied acute procedures were heel-sticks (29 studies) and needles (n = 10 studies). The largest SMD for treatment improvement over control conditions on pain reactivity were: non-nutritive sucking-related interventions (preterm: SMD -0.42; 95% CI -0.68 to -0.15; neonate: SMD -1.45, 95% CI -2.34 to -0.57), kangaroo care (preterm: SMD -1.12, 95% CI -2.04 to -0.21), and swaddling/facilitated tucking (preterm: SMD -0.97; 95% CI -1.63 to -0.31). For immediate pain-related regulation, the largest SMDs were: non-nutritive sucking-related interventions (preterm: SMD -0.38; 95% CI -0.59 to -0.17; neonate: SMD -0.90, 95% CI -1.54 to -0.25), kangaroo care (SMD -0.77, 95% CI -1.50 to -0.03), swaddling/facilitated tucking (preterm: SMD -0.75; 95% CI -1.14 to -0.36), and rocking/holding (neonate: SMD -0.75; 95% CI -1.20 to -0.30). The presence of significant heterogeneity limited our confidence in the lack of findings for certain analyses. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: There is evidence that different non-pharmacological interventions can be used with preterms, neonates, and older infants to significantly manage pain behaviors associated with acutely painful procedures.

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)0.004
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.018
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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.006
Threshold uncertainty score0.023

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.018
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.002
Bibliometrics0.0020.002
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0060.000

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 head0.105
GPT teacher head0.378
Teacher spread0.273 · 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

Citations165
Published2011
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCochrane Database of Systematic ReviewsFrench-language works237,207