Evidence map›Paper›PMID 11686975›Full record

SynthesisThe Cochrane database of systematic reviews2001

Non-nutritive sucking for promoting physiologic stability and nutrition in preterm infants.

J Pinelli, A Symington

Registry-linked trialAbstract readSystematic Review
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Synthesis in The Cochrane database of systematic reviews, 2001. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT00365703 (Nasogastric Tube vs. Orogastric Feeding Tube in Preterm Infants), which is not on this map. Cited by 4 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
4citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

NCT00365703 nacompletednot on this mapstarted 2006, after this paper: background citation

Nasogastric Tube vs. Orogastric Feeding Tube in Preterm Infants: Which is Best?

TypeinterventionalSponsorHillel Yaffe Medical CenterRan2006 to 2007Enrolled115ConditionsInfant, PrematureArmsFeeding tube insertion
3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

4 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Review
  3. Family friendly care.BMJ (Clinical research ed.) · 2004
    Article
  4. Enteral feeding of low birth weight infants.Indian journal of pediatrics · 2002
    Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

2 authors.

J PinelliSchool of Nursing, McMaster University, 1200 Main St. West, Hamilton, Ontario, Canada, L8N 3Z5. pinellij@fhs.mcmaster.ca
A Symington

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundNon-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.

objectivesTo 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. SEARCH STRATEGY: MEDLINE and CINAHL databases back to 1976 and the Cochrane Controlled Trials register were searched. 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. The searches of MEDLINE, CINAHL and CCTR were updated to December 2000. SELECTION CRITERIA: 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 COLLECTION AND 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. MAIN

resultsThis review consisted of 20 studies, 14 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, and age at full oral feeds). The review identified other positive clinical outcomes of NNS: transition from tube to bottle feeds, better bottle feeding performance and behavior. No negative outcomes were reported in any of the studies. REVIEWER'S

conclusionsThis 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, and age at full oral feeds). The review identified other positive clinical outcomes of NNS: transition from tube to bottle feeds, better bottle feeding performance and behavior. 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.

Indexed as

Infant CareSucking BehaviorHumansInfant, NewbornInfant Nutritional Physiological PhenomenaInfant, Premature

Identifiers

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.