1
|
Pillai Riddell RR, Bucsea O, Shiff I, Chow C, Gennis HG, Badovinac S, DiLorenzo-Klas M, Racine NM, Ahola Kohut S, Lisi D, Turcotte K, Stevens B, Uman LS. Non-pharmacological management of infant and young child procedural pain. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2023; 6:CD006275. [PMID: 37314064 PMCID: PMC10265939 DOI: 10.1002/14651858.cd006275.pub4] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Submit a Manuscript] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 06/15/2023]
Abstract
BACKGROUND Despite evidence of the long-term implications of unrelieved pain during infancy, it is evident that infant pain is still under-managed and unmanaged. Inadequately managed pain in infancy, a period of exponential development, can have implications across the lifespan. Therefore, a comprehensive and systematic review of pain management strategies is integral to appropriate infant pain management. This is an update of a previously published review update in the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews (2015, Issue 12) of the same title. OBJECTIVES To assess the efficacy and adverse events of non-pharmacological interventions for infant and child (aged up to three years) acute pain, excluding kangaroo care, sucrose, breastfeeding/breast milk, and music. SEARCH METHODS For this update, we searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE-Ovid platform, EMBASE-OVID platform, PsycINFO-OVID platform, CINAHL-EBSCO platform and trial registration websites (ClinicalTrials.gov; International Clinical Trials Registry Platform) (March 2015 to October 2020). An update search was completed in July 2022, but studies identified at this point were added to 'Awaiting classification' for a future update. We also searched reference lists and contacted researchers via electronic list-serves. We incorporated 76 new studies into the review. SELECTION CRITERIA: Participants included infants from birth to three years in randomised controlled trials (RCTs) or cross-over RCTs that had a no-treatment control comparison. Studies were eligible for inclusion in the analysis if they compared a non-pharmacological pain management strategy to a no-treatment control group (15 different strategies). In addition, we also analysed studies when the unique effect of adding a non-pharmacological pain management strategy onto another pain management strategy could be assessed (i.e. additive effects on a sweet solution, non-nutritive sucking, or swaddling) (three strategies). The eligible control groups for these additive studies were sweet solution only, non-nutritive sucking only, or swaddling only, respectively. Finally, we qualitatively described six interventions that met the eligibility criteria for inclusion in the review, but not in the analysis. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: The outcomes assessed in the review were pain response (reactivity and regulation) and adverse events. The level of certainty in the evidence and risk of bias were based on the Cochrane risk of bias tool and the GRADE approach. We analysed the standardised mean difference (SMD) using the generic inverse variance method to determine effect sizes. MAIN RESULTS: We included total of 138 studies (11,058 participants), which includes an additional 76 new studies for this update. Of these 138 studies, we analysed 115 (9048 participants) and described 23 (2010 participants) qualitatively. We described qualitatively studies that could not be meta-analysed due to being the only studies in their category or statistical reporting issues. We report the results of the 138 included studies here. An SMD effect size of 0.2 represents a small effect, 0.5 a moderate effect, and 0.8 a large effect. The thresholds for the I2 interpretation were established as follows: not important (0% to 40%); moderate heterogeneity (30% to 60%); substantial heterogeneity (50% to 90%); considerable heterogeneity (75% to 100%). The most commonly studied acute procedures were heel sticks (63 studies) and needlestick procedures for the purposes of vaccines/vitamins (35 studies). We judged most studies to have high risk of bias (103 out of 138), with the most common methodological concerns relating to blinding of personnel and outcome assessors. Pain responses were examined during two separate pain phases: pain reactivity (within the first 30 seconds after the acutely painful stimulus) and immediate pain regulation (after the first 30 seconds following the acutely painful stimulus). We report below the strategies with the strongest evidence base for each age group. In preterm born neonates, non-nutritive sucking may reduce pain reactivity (SMD -0.57, 95% confidence interval (CI) -1.03 to -0.11, moderate effect; I2 = 93%, considerable heterogeneity) and improve immediate pain regulation (SMD -0.61, 95% CI -0.95 to -0.27, moderate effect; I2 = 81%, considerable heterogeneity), based on very low-certainty evidence. Facilitated tucking may also reduce pain reactivity (SMD -1.01, 95% CI -1.44 to -0.58, large effect; I2 = 93%, considerable heterogeneity) and improve immediate pain regulation (SMD -0.59, 95% CI -0.92 to -0.26, moderate effect; I2 = 87%, considerable heterogeneity); however, this is also based on very low-certainty evidence. While swaddling likely does not reduce pain reactivity in preterm neonates (SMD -0.60, 95% CI -1.23 to 0.04, no effect; I2 = 91%, considerable heterogeneity), it has been shown to possibly improve immediate pain regulation (SMD -1.21, 95% CI -2.05 to -0.38, large effect; I2 = 89%, considerable heterogeneity), based on very low-certainty evidence. In full-term born neonates, non-nutritive sucking may reduce pain reactivity (SMD -1.13, 95% CI -1.57 to -0.68, large effect; I2 = 82%, considerable heterogeneity) and improve immediate pain regulation (SMD -1.49, 95% CI -2.20 to -0.78, large effect; I2 = 92%, considerable heterogeneity), based on very low-certainty evidence. In full-term born older infants, structured parent involvement was the intervention most studied. Results showed that this intervention has little to no effect in reducing pain reactivity (SMD -0.18, 95% CI -0.40 to 0.03, no effect; I2 = 46%, moderate heterogeneity) or improving immediate pain regulation (SMD -0.09, 95% CI -0.40 to 0.21, no effect; I2 = 74%, substantial heterogeneity), based on low- to moderate-certainty evidence. Of these five interventions most studied, only two studies observed adverse events, specifically vomiting (one preterm neonate) and desaturation (one full-term neonate hospitalised in the NICU) following the non-nutritive sucking intervention. The presence of considerable heterogeneity limited our confidence in the findings for certain analyses, as did the preponderance of evidence of very low to low certainty based on GRADE judgements. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS Overall, non-nutritive sucking, facilitated tucking, and swaddling may reduce pain behaviours in preterm born neonates. Non-nutritive sucking may also reduce pain behaviours in full-term neonates. No interventions based on a substantial body of evidence showed promise in reducing pain behaviours in older infants. Most analyses were based on very low- or low-certainty grades of evidence and none were based on high-certainty evidence. Therefore, the lack of confidence in the evidence would require further research before we could draw a definitive conclusion.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
| | - Oana Bucsea
- Department of Psychology, York University, Toronto, Canada
| | - Ilana Shiff
- Department of Psychology, York University, Toronto, Canada
| | - Cheryl Chow
- Department of Psychology, York University, Toronto, Canada
| | | | | | | | - Nicole M Racine
- Department of Psychology, University of Calgary, Calgary, Canada
| | - Sara Ahola Kohut
- Gastroenterology, Hepatology and Nutrition, Hospital for Sick Children, Toronto, Canada
| | - Diana Lisi
- Department of Psychology, University of British Columbia Okanagan, Kelowna, Canada
| | - Kara Turcotte
- Department of Psychology, University of British Columbia Okanagan, Kelowna, Canada
| | - Bonnie Stevens
- Nursing Research, The Hospital for Sick Children, Toronto, Canada
| | | |
Collapse
|
2
|
Patel DV, Soni SN, Shukla VV, Phatak AG, Shinde MK, Nimbalkar AS, Nimbalkar SM. Efficacy of Skin-to-Skin Care versus Swaddling for Pain Control Associated with Vitamin K Administration in Full-Term Neonates: A Randomized Controlled Trial. J Trop Pediatr 2022; 68:6614519. [PMID: 35737952 DOI: 10.1093/tropej/fmac052] [Citation(s) in RCA: 1] [Impact Index Per Article: 0.5] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Submit a Manuscript] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 11/14/2022]
Abstract
OBJECTIVE The objective of the study was to assess the efficacy of immediate skin-to-skin care (SSC) versus swaddling in pain response to intramuscular injection of vitamin K at 30 min of birth in neonates. METHODS Healthy full-term newborns were enrolled immediately after normal vaginal delivery and randomized in two groups, SSC and swaddling. Neonatal Infant Pain Scale (NIPS) was measured before, immediately after and at 2 min after the injection. RESULTS Total 100 newborns were enrolled in the study (50 in each group). The mean (SD) birth weight of newborns in the SSC and swaddling group was 2668 (256) and 2730 (348) g, respectively. NIPS was comparable between the SSC and swaddling at before [1.78 (0.58) vs. 1.96 (0.83), p = 0.21], and immediately after the injection [4.82 (0.72) vs. 5.08 (0.75), p = 0.08]. NIPS at 2 min after the injection was significantly low in the SSC group compared to the swaddling group [1.38 (0.70) vs. 2.88 (1.00), p < 0.001]. At 2 min after injection, the NIPS score was significantly lower than baseline in the SSC group (p = 0.002), while it was significantly higher in the swaddling group (p < 0.001). A significantly higher proportion of newborns had a NIPS score of more than three at 2 min after injection in the swaddling group as compared to the SSC group (22% vs. 2%, p < 0.001). CONCLUSION Immediate SSC was more efficacious as compared to swaddling as a pain control intervention while giving vitamin K injection. CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION The trial is registered with the Clinical Trial Registry of India with Registration number: CTRI/2020/01/022984.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Dipen V Patel
- Department of Neonatology, Pramukhswami Medical College, Bhaikaka University, Karamsad, India
| | - Sarthak N Soni
- Department of Pediatrics, Pramukhswami Medical College, Bhaikaka University, Karamsad, India
| | - Vivek V Shukla
- Department of Neonatology, Pramukhswami Medical College, Bhaikaka University, Karamsad, India.,Division of Neonatology, Department of Pediatrics, University of Alabama at Birmingham, Birmingham, AL, USA
| | - Ajay G Phatak
- Central Research Services, Pramukhswami Medical College, Charutar Arogya Mandal, Bhaikaka University, Karamsad, India
| | - Mayur K Shinde
- Central Research Services, Pramukhswami Medical College, Charutar Arogya Mandal, Bhaikaka University, Karamsad, India
| | - Archana S Nimbalkar
- Department of Physiology, Pramukhswami Medical College, Bhaikaka University, Charutar Arogya Mandal, Karamsad, India
| | - Somashekhar M Nimbalkar
- Department of Neonatology, Pramukhswami Medical College, Bhaikaka University, Karamsad, India
| |
Collapse
|