SynthesisBMC pediatrics2026
Effectiveness of oral motor interventions on feeding and orofacial motor outcomes in preterm infants: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials.
Synthesis in BMC pediatrics, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundEfficient oral feeding is a key functional milestone in neonatal and early childhood care, reflecting neuromuscular maturation, physiological stability, and readiness for hospital discharge. Infants and young children, particularly those born preterm, frequently experience feeding difficulties due to immature oral motor coordination. Structured oral motor interventions have been proposed to enhance feeding-related outcomes; however, their effectiveness remains variably reported. This systematic review and meta-analysis aimed to evaluate the effectiveness of oral motor interventions in improving feeding and oral motor outcomes in infants and young children compared with routine care.
methodsA systematic review and meta-analysis were conducted following the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses 2020 guidelines. Randomized controlled trials published between 2014 and 2024 were identified through PubMed, Cochrane Library, and Google Scholar. Eligible studies involved infants and young children with feeding difficulties or underdeveloped oral motor function and evaluated structured oral motor interventions compared with routine care or standard feeding support. Study selection was performed using Rayyan. Risk of bias was assessed using the Cochrane Risk of Bias tool version 2.0. Where appropriate, random-effects meta-analyses were performed, and effect estimates were presented as mean differences or standardized mean differences with 95% confidence intervals. The certainty of evidence was evaluated using the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation approach.
resultsTen randomized controlled trials were included. All included studies involved preterm infants receiving neonatal clinical care. Oral motor interventions were associated with improvements in feeding readiness, sucking-swallowing coordination, feeding efficiency, and earlier achievement of full oral feeding compared with routine care. Interventions incorporating Premature Infant Oral Motor Intervention demonstrated the most consistent benefits, particularly in reducing the time required to achieve independent oral feeding. The certainty of evidence ranged from low to moderate, with methodological heterogeneity and limited blinding representing the main sources of bias.
conclusionsOral motor interventions were associated with clinically relevant improvements in feeding-related outcomes among preterm infants compared with routine care. Overall, the findings support oral motor interventions as a clinically relevant adjunct to routine care for preterm infants with feeding difficulties associated with underdeveloped oral motor function. However, the certainty of evidence ranged from low to moderate, highlighting the need for further well-designed randomized controlled trials to clarify long-term developmental implications and inform evidence-based clinical practice.
trial registrationPROSPERO CRD420251270705.
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.