SynthesisBMJ open2020
Comparison of common interventions for the treatment of infantile colic: a systematic review of reviews and guidelines.
Synthesis in BMJ open, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 25 papers, 2 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
25 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.
- Clinical Practice Guideline for Best Practice Management of Pediatric Patients by Chiropractors: Results of a Delphi Consensus Process.Journal of integrative and complementary medicine · 2024Guideline
- Colic and sleep outcomes of nonpharmacological intervention in infants with infantile colic: systematic review and metaanalysis.Revista da Associacao Medica Brasileira (1992) · 2023Pooled it
- Osteopathic treatment of infants with infantile colic/excessive crying: a prospective, multicentric, randomized controlled trial and nested observational trial.BMC pediatrics · 2025Trial
- Comparative efficacy of probiotic mixture Bifidobacterium longum KABP042 plus Pediococcus pentosaceus KABP041 vs. Limosilactobacillus reuteri DSM17938 in the management of infant colic: a randomized clinical trial.European journal of pediatrics · 2024Trial
- Associations of Colic and Excessive Crying in Infancy with Food Allergy Outcomes in Childhood and Adolescence.The Journal of pediatrics · 2026Article
- Attitudes toward the use of complementary and alternative medicine in children with gastrointestinal symptoms, a multicenter survey study among parents and pediatricians.European journal of pediatrics · 2026Article
- Review
- The Gut in Early Life-Postnatal Challenges.Children (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Review
- The effect of infantile colic training given to parents on the neonatal infantile colic level and crying duration.Scientific reports · 2026Article
- Infantile Colic: When to Suspect Cow's Milk Allergy.Nutrients · 2025Review
- Comparative Analysis of Breastfeeding and Infant Formulas: Short- and Long-Term Impacts on Infant Nutrition and Health.Food science & nutrition · 2025Review
- Infant Colic Symptoms and Amino Acid Formula: Insights from a Prospective Cohort Study.Nutrients · 2025Article
- Early-life risk factors for both infant colic and excessive crying without colic.Pediatric research · 2025Article
- Is there a role for nutritional advice during breastfeeding for infant colic relief? A mixed-method study.Heliyon · 2025Article
- Is domestic violence during COVID-19 in lactating women related to infantile colic? An important question.BMC public health · 2024Article
- Review
- Osteopathic Manual Therapy for Infant Colic: A Randomised Clinical Trial.Healthcare (Basel, Switzerland) · 2023Article
- Impact of Probiotics on the Prevention and Treatment of Gastrointestinal Diseases in the Pediatric Population.International journal of molecular sciences · 2023Review
- Effectiveness of a starch thickened infant formula with reduced lactose content, probiotics and prebiotics on quality of life and clinical outcome in infants with regurgitation and/or colic.Frontiers in nutrition · 2023Article
- Spinal manipulation and mobilisation in the treatment of infants, children, and adolescents: a systematic scoping review.BMC pediatrics · 2022Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveTo conduct a systematic review of systematic reviews and national guidelines to assess the effectiveness of four treatment approaches (manual therapy, probiotics, proton pump inhibitors and simethicone) on colic symptoms including infant crying time, sleep distress and adverse events.
methodsWe searched PubMed, Embase, Cochrane and Mantis for studies published between 2009 and 2019. Inclusion criteria were systematic reviews and guidelines that used evidence and expert panel opinion. Three reviewers independently selected articles by title, abstract and full paper review. Data were extracted by one reviewer and checked by a second. Selected studies were assessed for quality using modified standardised checklists by two authors. Meta-analysed data for our outcomes of interest were extracted and narrative conclusions were assessed.
resultsThirty-two studies were selected. High-level evidence showed that probiotics were most effective for reducing crying time in breastfed infants (range -25 min to -65 min over 24 hours). Manual therapies had moderate to low-quality evidence showing reduced crying time (range -33 min to -76 min per 24 hours). Simethicone had moderate to low evidence showing no benefit or negative effect. One meta-analysis did not support the use of proton pump inhibitors for reducing crying time and fussing. Three national guidelines unanimously recommended the use of education, parental reassurance, advice and guidance and clinical evaluation of mother and baby. Consensus on other advice and treatments did not exist.
conclusionsThe strongest evidence for the treatment of colic was probiotics for breastfed infants, followed by weaker but favourable evidence for manual therapy indicated by crying time. Both forms of treatment carried a low risk of serious adverse events. The guidance reviewed did not reflect these findings. PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER: CRD42019139074.
Indexed as
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.