Evidence map›Paper›PMID 38172771›Full record

ArticleBMC pediatrics2024

Effect of non-pharmacological interventions on pain in preterm infants in the neonatal intensive care unit: a network meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials.

Yuwei Weng, Jie Zhang, Zhifang Chen

Open access · goldAbstract readNetwork Meta-Analysis
In one paragraph

Article in BMC pediatrics, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 10 papers, 5 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
10citing papers in PubMed, 5 pooled it
24.4field-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

10 citing papers in PubMed, 5 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 22 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. The analgesic effects of human milk odor in preterm neonates: a systematic review and meta-analysis.Journal of perinatology : official journal of the California Perinatal Association · 2026
    Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Pooled it
  6. Article
  7. Review
  8. Article
  9. Observational
  10. 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

3 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

Yuwei WengMedical School of Nantong University, Nantong, 226001, China.
Jie ZhangMedical School of Nantong University, Nantong, 226001, China.
Zhifang ChenObstetrical Department, Affiliated Maternity and Child Health Care Hospital of Nantong University, Nantong, 226001, China. 1730738156@qq.com.
Nantong University · CN

Funding

Research Project of Nantong Municipal Health Commission MS12021040
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectiveTo evaluate the effectiveness of different non-pharmacological interventions for pain management in preterm infants and provide high-quality clinical evidence.

methodsRandomized controlled trials (RCTs) of various non-pharmacological interventions for pain management in preterm infants were searched from PubMed, Web of Science, Embase, and the Cochrane Library from 2000 to the present (updated March 2023). The primary outcome was pain score reported as standardized mean difference (SMD). The secondary outcomes were oxygen saturation and heart rate reported as the same form.

resultsThirty five RCTs of 2134 preterm infants were included in the meta-analysis, involving 6 interventions: olfactory stimulation, combined oral sucrose and non-nutritive sucking (OS + NNS), facilitated tucking, auditory intervention, tactile relief, and mixed intervention. Based on moderate-quality evidence, OS + NNS (OR: 3.92, 95% CI: 1.72, 6.15, SUCRA score: 0.73), facilitated tucking (OR: 2.51, 95% CI: 1.15, 3.90, SUCRA score: 0.29), auditory intervention (OR: 2.48, 95% CI: 0.91, 4.10, SUCRA score: 0.27), olfactory stimulation (OR: 1.80, 95% CI: 0.51, 3.14, SUCRA score: 0.25), and mixed intervention (OR: 2.26, 95% CI: 0.10, 4.38, SUCRA score: 0.14) were all superior to the control group for pain relief. For oxygen saturation, facilitated tucking (OR: 1.94, 95% CI: 0.66, 3.35, SUCRA score: 0.64) and auditory intervention (OR: 1.04, 95% CI: 0.22, 2.04, SUCRA score: 0.36) were superior to the control. For heart rate, none of the comparisons between the various interventions were statistically significant.

conclusionThis study showed that there are notable variations in the effectiveness of different non-pharmacological interventions in terms of pain scores and oxygen saturation. However, there was no evidence of any improvement in heart rate.

Indexed as

Intensive Care Units, NeonatalPainHumansInfantInfant, NewbornInfant, PrematureRandomized Controlled Trials as TopicSucroseSucroseNeonatal intensive care unitNetwork meta-analysisNon-pharmacological interventionPainPreterm infant

Identifiers

PMID38172771
PMCPMC10765718
OpenAlexW4390545569

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.