MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4415522959 · doi:10.1038/s41372-025-02423-w

Sucrose or glucose compared to breast milk for pain control in preterm infants: a systematic review and meta-analysis

2025· review· en· W4415522959 on OpenAlexaff
Shaneela Shahid, Jorge Acosta‐Reyes, Iván D. Flórez

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Perinatology · 2025
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicPediatric Pain Management Techniques
Canadian institutionsMcMaster UniversityImpact
Fundersnot available
KeywordsVenipunctureCryingHeelBreast milkNeonatologyGestational ageBreast feeding

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The aim of this systematic review/meta-analysis of randomized clinical trials (RCTs) was to determine the efficacy of sucrose or glucose (SG) in preterm infants requiring heel lancing and venipuncture compared to breast milk or expressed breast milk (BM/EBM) for pain control and crying duration. Six RCTs (525 infants) comparing sucrose (24%) or glucose (30%, 10%, 25%) with BM/EBM were included. There was no difference between the alternatives in pain reduction at 30 s post-procedure measured with the Premature Infant Pain Profile (PIPP/PIPP-R) scores (MD -0.95, 95% CI -2.43; 0.54, Low certainty evidence). SG reduced the crying duration (MD -6.88, 95%CI -11.42; -2.34, Moderate certainty evidence). There were no differences between SG and BM/EBM in heart rate change or adverse events. In conclusion, moderate certainty evidence suggests that SG may be superior to BM/EBM for reducing crying duration during heel lancing and venipuncture procedures, but not for reducing pain intensity measured with PIPP/PIPP-R. OBJECTIVE: To determine the efficacy of sucrose or glucose (SG) in preterm infants requiring heel lancing and venipuncture compared to breast milk or expressed breast milk (BM/EBM) for pain control and crying duration. STUDY DESIGN: Systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized clinical trials. RESULTS: Six RCTs (525 infants) comparing sucrose (24%) or glucose (30%, 10%, 25%) with BM/EBM. There was no difference between the alternatives in pain reduction at 30 s post-procedure measured with the Premature Infant Pain Profile (PIPP/PIPP-R) scores (MD -0.95, 95% CI -2.43; 0.54, Low certainty evidence). SG reduced the crying duration (MD -6.88, 95%CI -11.42; -2.34, Moderate certainty evidence). There were no differences between SG and BM/EBM in heart rate change or adverse events. CONCLUSIONS: Moderate certainty evidence suggests that SG may be superior to BM/EBM for reducing crying duration during heel lancing and venipuncture procedures, but not for reducing pain intensity measured with PIPP/PIPP-R.

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)0.009
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.024
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Meta-analysis · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.019
Threshold uncertainty score0.046

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0090.024
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0030.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0190.033
Bibliometrics0.0040.004
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0030.002
Open science0.0020.001
Research integrity0.0020.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0050.000

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 head0.050
GPT teacher head0.389
Teacher spread0.340 · 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 designMeta-analysis
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

Citations1
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of PerinatologySame topicPediatric Pain Management TechniquesFrench-language works237,207