SynthesisSystematic reviews2026
The comparative efficacy and safety of sweet solutions to reduce preterm infants' pain levels: a systematic review and network meta-analysis.
Synthesis in Systematic reviews, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Multimodal non-pharmacological pain relief during adhesive tape removal in preterm infants: a randomized controlled trial.Journal of perinatology : official journal of the California Perinatal Association · 2026Article
- Pain Management During Neonatal Blood Sampling: An Overview of Systematic Reviews.Paediatric & neonatal pain · 2026Review
- Efficacy of Expressed Breast Milk Versus Sweet Solutions for Neonatal Procedural Pain: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.Biomedicines · 2026Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundSweet solutions are widely used to reduce procedural pain in preterm infants, but their comparative efficacy and safety remain unclear.
methodsWe searched CINAHL, MEDLINE, Embase, CENTRAL, Scopus, and ProQuest for randomized controlled trials comparing glucose, sucrose, or expressed breast milk with control or with each other in preterm infants. We performed a random-effects frequentist network meta-analysis across three pain time points (reactivity, regulation, recovery). Pain level served as the primary outcome, while heart rate, oxygen saturation, respiratory rate, crying time, and adverse events were designated as secondary outcomes. Treatment efficacy was subsequently ranked using P-scores and a beading plot.
resultsWe screened 10,043 records, included 42 RCTs (2733 infants), and analyzed 38 RCTs (2367 infants) in the network meta-analysis. Compared to the controls alone, glucose (standardized mean difference [SMD], -0.72; 95% confidence interval [CI], -1.19 to -0.25) and sucrose (SMD, -0.56; 95% CI, -1.04 to -0.07) were associated with lower pain responses in the reaction phase. In the regulation and recovery phases, pain reduction was consistently linked to glucose, sucrose, and expressed breast milk. Those interventions were supported by results of P-scores that ranged from 0.877 to 0.917 showing glucose's superiority in the three phases. Glucose was associated with a higher risk of adverse events. Half of the 38 trials in the network meta-analysis had a low risk of bias. The evidence certainty for the primary outcome was moderate to very low, while the certainty for the secondary outcomes spanned a range from high to very low.
conclusionsGlucose ranked most effective for reducing procedural pain in preterm infants, followed by sucrose and expressed breast milk. Future trials should evaluate optimal dosing, repeated administration, and combinations with other non-pharmacological pain-management strategies to maximize efficacy and safety. SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION: PROSPERO CRD42023389288 Glucose is the most effective sweet solution in alleviating pain scores in preterm infants, followed by sucrose and expressed breast milk.
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.