Evidence map›Paper›PMID 28378502›Full record

SynthesisThe Cochrane database of systematic reviews2017

Infant pacifiers for reduction in risk of sudden infant death syndrome.

Kim Psaila, Jann P Foster, Neil Pulbrook, Heather E Jeffery

Open access · bronzeAbstract readSystematic Review
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Synthesis in The Cochrane database of systematic reviews, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 15 papers, 3 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
15citing papers in PubMed, 3 pooled it
1.8field-weighted citation impact, top 17% of its field
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.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

15 citing papers in PubMed, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 47 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Malocclusion prevention through the usage of an orthodontic pacifier compared to a conventional pacifier: a systematic review.European archives of paediatric dentistry : official journal of the European Academy of Paediatric Dentistry · 2018
    Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Trial
  5. Review
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Review
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

4 authors at 4 institutions in 1 country.

Kim PsailaSchool of Nursing and Midwifery, Western Sydney University, Penrith, DC, Australia.
Jann P FosterSchool of Nursing and Midwifery, Western Sydney University, Penrith DC, Australia.
Neil PulbrookNewborn Care, Liverpool Hospital, Elizabeth Street, Liverpool, Australia, 2170.
Heather E JefferySydney School of Public Health, University of Sydney, Sydney, NSW, Australia, 2050.
Ingham Institute · AULiverpool Hospital · AUUniversity of Sydney · AUWestern Sydney University · AU

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundSudden infant death syndrome (SIDS) has been most recently defined as the sudden unexpected death of an infant less than one year of age, with onset of the fatal episode apparently occurring during sleep, that remains unexplained after a thorough investigation, including the performance of a complete autopsy and a review of the circumstances of death and clinical history. Despite the success of several prevention campaigns, SIDS remains a leading cause of infant mortality. In 1994, a 'triple risk model' for SIDS was proposed that described SIDS as an event that results from the intersection of three factors: a vulnerable infant; a critical development period in homeostatic control (age related); and an exogenous stressor. The association between pacifier (dummy) use and reduced incidence of SIDS has been shown in epidemiological studies since the early 1990s. Pacifier use, given its low cost, might be a cost-effective intervention for SIDS prevention if it is confirmed effective in randomised controlled trials.

objectivesTo determine whether the use of pacifiers during sleep versus no pacifier during sleep reduces the risk of SIDS. SEARCH

methodsWe used the standard search strategy of the Cochrane Neonatal Review Group to search the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL 2016, Issue 2), MEDLINE via PubMed, Embase, and CINAHL to 16 March 2016. We also searched clinical trials databases, conference proceedings, and the reference lists of retrieved articles for randomised controlled trials and quasi-randomised trials. SELECTION CRITERIA: Published and unpublished controlled trials using random and quasi-random allocations of infants born at term and at preterm (less than 37 weeks' gestation) or with low birth weight (< 2500 g). Infants must have been randomised by one month' postmenstrual age. We planned to include studies reported only by abstracts, and cluster and cross-over randomised trials. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors independently reviewed studies from searches. We found no eligible studies. MAIN

resultsWe identified no randomised controlled trials examining infant pacifiers for reduction in risk of SIDS. AUTHORS'

conclusionsWe found no randomised control trial evidence on which to support or refute the use of pacifiers for the prevention of SIDS.

Indexed as

PacifiersHumansInfantInfant, NewbornInfant, PrematureSudden Infant DeathTerm Birth

Identifiers

PMID28378502
PMCPMC6478106
OpenAlexW1935823324

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.