ArticlePaediatrics & child health2025
Pain from suprapubic aspiration versus urethral catheterization in neonates and infants ≤6 months: 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
Background: The evaluation of suspected late-onset sepsis in neonates and infants ≤6 months includes obtaining a sterile urine sample. Two techniques are used interchangeably in clinical practice to detect the presence of microorganisms: suprapubic aspiration (SPA) and urethral catheterization (UC). At present, it is unclear which method causes more pain. The primary objective of this systematic review and meta-analysis is to determine which technique is more painful. Methods: Electronic databases were searched for relevant randomized and quasi-randomized trials in September 2023. The literature search was updated in June 2025 and no additional eligible articles were identified for inclusion. Title and abstract screening, followed by data extraction, were performed in duplicate. The risk of bias was assessed using Cochrane's risk of bias (RoB) 2.0 tool. The critically important outcome was pain measured using validated tools including unidimensional (behavioural) and multidimensional (combination of behavioural and physiological components) tools. Secondary outcomes included procedure success, procedure duration, and adverse events. Pooled effects estimates were standardized mean difference (SMD), mean difference (MD), and relative risk (RR) with 95% confidence intervals (CI) from random effects meta-analyses. Certainty assessment was completed using Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) methodology. Results: Of the seven included studies, five studies reported pain scores among 378 infants. Clinical heterogeneity was noted across the studies specifically differences in postnatal age, procedure details (e.g., operator skillset, use of anesthetic and analgesic, ultrasound guidance), and pain assessment tools (unidimensional vs. multidimensional pain scores). There was no difference in pain score for overall procedure for SPA versus UC (SMD 0.25 [95% CI -0.63, 1.14], I Discussion: There is insufficient evidence to recommend one technique over the other for reducing pain in infants ≤6 months. Healthcare professionals can select SPA or UC based on the unit preference, skillset, and available resources. Future research is required to inform clinical practice.
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.