Evidence map›Paper›PMID 36171044›Full record

ReviewBMJ open2022

Efficacy and safety of non-pharmacological interventions for neonatal pain: an overview of systematic reviews.

Qiao Shen, Zixuan Huang, Hongyao Leng, Xufei Luo, Xianlan Zheng

Open access · goldAbstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in BMJ open, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 20 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
20citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
17.9field-weighted citation impact, top 1% 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

20 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 50 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. [Evidence-based guideline for neonatal pain management in China (2023)].Zhongguo dang dai er ke za zhi = Chinese journal of contemporary pediatrics · 2023
    Guideline
  3. Trial
  4. Trial
  5. Trial
  6. Trial
  7. Trial
  8. Review
  9. Auditory stimulation to reduce procedure pain in neonates: A scoping review.International journal of nursing studies advances · 2026
    Review
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Review
  19. Review
  20. 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

5 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

Qiao ShenDepartment of Nursing, Children's Hospital of Chongqing Medical University, Chongqing, China.ORCID 0000-0002-7864-5816
Zixuan HuangDepartment of Nursing, Children's Hospital of Chongqing Medical University, Chongqing, China.
Hongyao LengDepartment of Nursing, Children's Hospital of Chongqing Medical University, Chongqing, China.
Xufei LuoSchool of Public Health, Lanzhou University, Lanzhou, Gansu, China.
Xianlan ZhengDepartment of Nursing, Children's Hospital of Chongqing Medical University, Chongqing, China zhengxianlan@vip.163.com.
Children's Hospital of Chongqing Medical University · CNLanzhou University · CN

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectivesTo synthesise current evidence from systematic reviews (SRs) regarding the efficacy and safety of non-pharmacological interventions to prevent and treat pain in newborn infants.

designOverview of SRs. DATA SOURCES: We searched PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Library, Web of Science, CINAHL, Chinese National Knowledge Infrastructure (CNKI), Chinese Biomedical Literature Database (CBM), Wanfang Database, Chinese Science and Technology Periodical Database (VIP) and Google Scholar to identify all relevant SRs published in the last 5 years. ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA FOR SELECTING STUDIES: We included SRs that evaluated the efficacy and safety of non-pharmacological interventions for neonatal pain. DATA EXTRACTION AND SYNTHESIS: Two reviewers independently extracted the data, assessed the methodological quality using a Measurement Tool to Assess Systematic Reviews (AMSTAR) 2 and graded the evidence quality with the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE).

resultsA total of 29 SRs were included in this overview, of which 28 focused on procedural pain and only 1 focused on postoperative pain. Based on AMSTAR 2, seven reviews were found to be of 'high quality', eight of 'moderate quality', five of 'low quality' and nine of 'critically low quality'. The GRADE results suggested that facilitated tucking, kangaroo care, sweet solutions, familiar odour or combined non-pharmacological interventions, such as a combination of sucrose and non-nutritive sucking, were effective and safe in reducing pain from medical procedures in neonates. However, sucrose alone was less effective than local anaesthesia or a combination of the two during circumcision.

conclusionsFacilitated tucking, small volumes of sweet solutions, kangaroo care and familiar odour were recommended. Scientific implementation strategies should be developed to promote the clinical use of these effective non-pharmacological interventions. Meanwhile, further rigorous trials and SRs are needed to identify the best non-pharmacological approaches for pain from common surgery and illnesses in neonates. PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER: CRD42021292583.

Indexed as

PainSucroseHumansSystematic Reviews as TopicSucroseNeonatal intensive & critical careNEONATOLOGYPAIN MANAGEMENT

Identifiers

PMID36171044
PMCPMC9528682
OpenAlexW4297497202

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
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.