ReviewThe Cochrane database of systematic reviews2016
Pain-relieving agents for infantile colic.
Review in The Cochrane database of systematic reviews, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 26 papers, 3 of them syntheses that pooled 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.
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.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
26 citing papers in PubMed, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 68 citations in OpenAlex.
- Comparison of common interventions for the treatment of infantile colic: a systematic review of reviews and guidelines.BMJ open · 2020Pooled it
- Parent training programmes for managing infantile colic.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2019Pooled it
- Probiotics to prevent infantile colic.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2019Pooled it
- Osteopathic treatment of infants with infantile colic/excessive crying: a prospective, multicentric, randomized controlled trial and nested observational trial.BMC pediatrics · 2025Trial
- Oral lactase for infantile colic: a randomized double-blind placebo-controlled trial.BMC pediatrics · 2022Trial
- Sucking behaviour using feeding teats with and without an anticolic system: a randomized controlled clinical trial.BMC pediatrics · 2018Trial
- The Gut in Early Life-Postnatal Challenges.Children (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Review
- The Maternal Support Framework Studying Mothers' Perceived Understanding and Support During Excessive Infant Crying: Exploratory Qualitative Study.JMIR pediatrics and parenting · 2025Article
- Exploring Manual Interventions for Infantile Colic: A Scoping Review of the Evidence.Children (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025Review
- Probiotics in Functional Gastrointestinal Disorders.Advances in experimental medicine and biology · 2024Review
- Article
- Review
- Efficacy and Safety of a Colic Relief Remedy in Infantile Colic.Global pediatric health · 2022Article
- Efficacy of probiotics for managing infantile colic due to their anti-inflammatory properties: a meta-analysis and systematic review.Clinical and experimental pediatrics · 2021Article
- How Do Mothers Take Care of Their Infants with Colic Pain? A Mixed-Method Study.Ethiopian journal of health sciences · 2021Article
- Shedding light on excessive crying in babies.Pediatric research · 2021Article
- Infantile Colic Treated WithFrontiers in pediatrics · 2021Article
- Cross-sectional study of drug utilisation in a Chinese neonatal unit.The Journal of international medical research · 2020Article
- The Effect of Probiotics on Symptoms, Gut Microbiota and Inflammatory Markers in Infantile Colic: A Systematic Review, Meta-Analysis and Meta-Regression of Randomized Controlled Trials.Journal of clinical medicine · 2020Review
- Effectiveness of probiotics in infantile colic: A rapid review.Paediatrics & child health · 2020Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors at 4 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundInfantile colic is a common disorder in the first months of life, affecting somewhere between 4% and 28% of infants worldwide, depending on geography and definitions used. Although it is self limiting and resolves by four months of age, colic is perceived by parents as a problem that requires action. Pain-relieving agents, such as drugs, sugars and herbal remedies, have been suggested as interventions to reduce crying episodes and severity of symptoms.
objectivesTo assess the effectiveness and safety of pain-relieving agents for reducing colic in infants younger than four months of age. SEARCH
methodsWe searched the following databases in March 2015 and again in May 2016: CENTRAL, Ovid MEDLINE, Embase and PsycINFO, along with 11 other databases. We also searched two trial registers, four thesis repositories and the reference lists of relevant studies to identify unpublished and ongoing studies. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and quasi-RCTs evaluating the effects of pain-relieving agents given to infants with colic. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: We used the standard methodological procedures of The Cochrane Collaboration. MAIN
resultsWe included 18 RCTs involving 1014 infants. All studies were small and at high risk of bias, often presenting major shortcomings across multiple design factors (e.g. selection, performance, attrition, lack of washout period).Three studies compared simethicone with placebo, and one with Mentha piperita; four studies compared herbal agents with placebo; two compared sucrose or glucose with placebo; five compared dicyclomine with placebo; and two compared cimetropium - one against placebo and the other at two different dosages. One multiple-arm study compared sucrose and herbal tea versus no treatment. Simethicone. Comparison with placebo revealed no difference in daily hours of crying reported for simethicone at the end of treatment in one small, low-quality study involving 27 infants. A meta-analysis of data from two cross-over studies comparing simethicone with placebo showed no difference in the number of of infants who responded positively to treatment (risk ratio (RR) 0.95, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.73 to 1.23; 110 infants, low-quality evidence).One small study (30 participants) compared simethicone with Mentha piperita and found no difference in crying duration, number of crying episodes or number of responders. Herbal agents. We found low-quality evidence suggesting that herbal agents reduce the duration of crying compared with placebo (mean difference (MD) 1.33, 95% CI 0.71 to 1.96; three studies, 279 infants), with different magnitude of benefit noted across studies (I² = 96%). We found moderate-quality evidence indicating that herbal agents increase response over placebo (RR 2.05, 95% CI 1.56 to 2.70; three studies, 277 infants). Sucrose. One very low-quality study involving 35 infants reported that sucrose reduced hours spent crying compared with placebo (MD 1.72, 95% CI 1.38 to 2.06). Dicyclomine. We could consider only one of the five studies of dicyclomine (48 infants) for the primary comparison. In this study, more of the infants given dicyclomine responded than than those given placebo (RR 2.50, 95% CI 1.17 to 5.34). Cimetropium bromide. Data from one very low-quality study comparing cimetropium bromide with placebo showed reduced crying duration among infants treated with cimetropium bromide (MD -30.20 minutes per crisis, 95% CI -39.51 to -20.89; 86 infants). The same study reported that cimetropium increased the number of responders (RR 2.29, 95% CI 1.44 to 3.64).No serious adverse events were reported for all of the agents considered, with the exception of dicyclomine, for which two of five studies reported relevant adverse effects (longer sleep 4%, wide-eyed state 4%, drowsiness 13%). AUTHORS'
conclusionsAt the present time, evidence of the effectiveness of pain-relieving agents for the treatment of infantile colic is sparse and prone to bias. The few available studies included small sample sizes, and most had serious limitations. Benefits, when reported, were inconsistent.We found no evidence to support the use of simethicone as a pain-relieving agent for infantile colic.Available evidence shows that herbal agents, sugar, dicyclomine and cimetropium bromide cannot be recommended for infants with colic.Investigators must conduct RCTs using standardised measures that allow comparisons among pain-relieving agents and pooling of results across studies. Parents, who most often provide the intervention and assess the outcome, should always be blinded.
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
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.