ArticlePaediatrics & child health2025
Pain management strategies for thoracocentesis and thoracostomy in neonates: A systematic review and meta-analysis.
Article in Paediatrics & child health, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Tipping the scale to no pain: Knowledge synthesis of procedural pain management in neonates.Paediatrics & child health · 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
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Objectives: Thoracostomy and thoracocentesis are painful invasive procedures. Several professional organizations have recommended the combined use of non-pharmacological and pharmacological interventions to alleviate pain from these procedures in neonates. However, none of these recommendations are based on a systematic review of the literature. The primary objective of this systematic review and meta-analysis was to synthesize the literature on pain management strategies for thoracotomy and thoracocentesis. Methods: Databases were searched for randomized trials evaluating pharmacological and non-pharmacological interventions for pain mitigation for thoracocentesis and thoracostomy in any age group from inception to March 2025. The literature search was updated in June 2025 and no additional eligible articles were identified for inclusion. Title and abstract screening, full-text screening, and data extraction were performed in duplicate. Risk of bias was assessed using Cochrane's risk of bias (RoB) tool version 2.0. The critically important outcome was pain measured using validated tools including unidimensional behaviours (comprising facial actions, body movements, and cry) tools and multidimensional (comprising combinations of contextual, behavioural, and/or physiological components) tools. Secondary outcomes included procedure success, procedure duration, ease of procedure, and adverse events. Pooled effect estimates were standardized mean difference and relative risk with 95% confidence intervals using random effects model. A GRADE assessment of the overall certainty of the evidence for each outcome was completed. Results: One study with 36 adult participants assessing pain from thoracocentesis was included. The interventions compared were topical vs subcutaneous administration of local anaesthetics. There was no difference in the overall procedural pain, patient satisfaction, and the number of attempts between the two groups. There was very low evidence of certainty for the critical outcome of pain. Conclusions: No recommendation for pain management for these procedures can be made from the single included study. Currently, professional guidelines recommend the use of subcutaneous lidocaine and intravenous opioids for thoracostomy. Future studies are recommended to evaluate the effectiveness of various pharmacological and non-pharmacological interventions (head-to-head comparison).
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.