SynthesisFrontiers in pediatrics2025
A Bayesian network meta-analysis of non-pharmacological interventions for neonatal pain management: a clinical effectiveness comparison.
Synthesis in Frontiers in pediatrics, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers.
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
5 citing papers in PubMed.
- Efficacy of Expressed Breast Milk Versus Sweet Solutions for Neonatal Procedural Pain: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.Biomedicines · 2026Review
- Non-pharmacological ICU nursing interventions and melatonin concentrations: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials.BMC nursing · 2026Article
- Acupuncture versus Sham Acupuncture for Migraine without Aura: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.Journal of pain research · 2026Review
- Effects of ureteral stent removal using an extraction string following ureteroscopic lithotripsy: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials.Frontiers in surgery · 2026Review
- Impact of multicomponent physical exercise and high-intensity interval training on osteoporosis in postmenopausal women: protocol for a systematic review and network meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials.Systematic reviews · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Newborns are particularly vulnerable to pain, and non-pharmacological methods are frequently employed for pain management due to their lack of side effects. However, there is a lack of comprehensive comparison and ranking of the effectiveness of various non-pharmacological interventions. Objective: To evaluate the effectiveness of non-pharmacological interventions and to determine whether differences exist in the efficacy of various interventions. Design: Systematic review and network meta-analysis. Data source: RCTs studies in MEDLINE, EMBASE, Web of Science, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials from inception to November 1, 2024. Review methods: Up to November 1, 2024, we conducted a comprehensive search across four databases to identify studies meeting our inclusion criteria. A Bayesian model was employed for the analysis, and heterogeneity was quantified using random-effects standard deviation (RESD), Results: Initially, we identified 20 citations and included 59 trials involving 2,028 participants for network meta-analysis. Due to many interventions being supported by only one or two original studies, we excluded interventions with fewer than three studies. Ultimately, we identified 13 citations, including 31 trials with a total of 1,141 participants. Regarding efficacy, several interventions were found to be effective. Breast milk (BM), sweet taste (ST), Yakson touch (YT), swaddling, and heel warming (HW) demonstrated significant effectiveness, with mean differences (MDs) in NIPS scores as follows: BM vs. control, -1.71 [95% credible interval (CrI): -2.29, -1.17]; ST vs. control, -1.35 (CrI: -2.13, -0.52); YT vs. control, -1.41 (CrI: -2.09, -0.74); swaddling vs. control, -0.65 (CrI: -1.23, -0.13); and HW vs. control, -0.53 (CrI: -0.89, -0.01). In pairwise comparisons between interventions, significant efficacy differences were observed: BM vs. HW, -1.89 (CrI: -2.70, -1.05); BM vs. non-nutritive sucking (NNS), -1.89 (CrI: -2.70, -1.05); BM vs. ST, -0.88 (CrI: -1.61, -0.11); BM vs. YT, -0.82 (CrI: -1.56, -0.03); BM vs. swaddling, -1.59 (CrI: -2.20, -0.78); NNS vs. ST, 0.98 (CrI: 0.11, 1.89); NNS vs. YT, 1.06 (CrI: 0.12, 2.03); and HW vs. YT, 0.89 (CrI: 0.23, 1.69). Notably, NNS was not found to be effective. The Surface Under the Cumulative Ranking Curve (SUCRA) analysis suggested that BM may be the most effective non-pharmacological intervention for neonatal pain management. SUCRA rankings for the interventions were as follows: BM > ST > YT > swaddling > HW > NNS > control. However, the certainty of the evidence ranged from moderate to very low. Heterogeneity assessments indicated a random-effects standard deviation (RESD) of 0.28 (CrI: 0.04, 0.73) in the consistent model and 0.36 (CrI: 0.01, 1.36) in the inconsistent model, with Conclusion: Given the limitation of high heterogeneity, this study should be regarded as a clinical effectiveness comparison. Among the included interventions, breast milk (BM), sweet taste (ST), Yakson touch (YT), heel warming (HW), and swaddling were found to be efficacious, while non-nutritive sucking (NNS) was not effective. The top three interventions, based on ranking, were BM, YT, and ST. However, some effects should be interpreted with caution, as they are derived from small sample sizes. Future research should focus on identifying factors associated with individual responses through large, multicenter studies. Implications for Nursing Management: Findings will inform nurse managers of an ideal environment for the non-pharmacological pain management for newborn. Systematic Review Registration: https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/PROSPERO/view/CRD42023399924, PROSPERO CRD42024567338.
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.