Cochrane · systematic review · CD013353
Non‐pharmacological interventions for the prevention of pain during endotracheal suctioning in ventilated neonates
Pirlotte, S, Beeckman, K, Ooms, I, et al. · Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews · 2024 · Cochrane Library
NeonatalAMSTAR 2: not assessed
SoF tableOnly the outcomes this review put in its Summary of Findings table are listed (the Cochrane Handbook caps them at about seven per comparison). Its other analyses are not shown here.
Questions
23
current version
GRADE rated
11
No studies
12
Included studies
NR
No studies 12 · 52.2%Ungraded 0 · 0%Very low 0 · 0%Low 10 · 43.5%Moderate 1 · 4.3%High 0 · 0%
Ungraded means an effect was reported without a GRADE rating; it is not a gap. No studies means the review found nothing to answer the question. The six categories are a display order, not a score.
Questions and results
Facilitated tucking / four‐handed care / gentle human touch compared with standard care for pain during endotracheal suctioning
Population: neonates with mechanical ventilation
| Outcome | Effect | Evidence | Status / GRADE |
|---|---|---|---|
Validated pain scales Facilitated tucking / four‐handed care / gentle human touch vs standard care | no estimate extracted | NR | No studies |
PIPP during endotracheal suctioning Range of scale 0 to 21. Lower score = less pain Facilitated tucking / four‐handed care / gentle human touch vs standard care | no estimate extracted | 4 studies · 148 participants | Moderate Downgraded: risk of bias |
Physiological indicators Facilitated tucking / four‐handed care / gentle human touch vs standard care | no estimate extracted | NR | No studies |
Heart rate Facilitated tucking / four‐handed care / gentle human touch vs standard care | no estimate extracted | 2 studies · 80 participants | Low Downgraded: risk of bias, imprecision |
SaO 2 during endotracheal suctioning Facilitated tucking / four‐handed care / gentle human touch vs standard care | MD 0.87 | 2 studies · 80 participants | Low Downgraded: risk of bias, imprecision |
Behavioural indicators Facilitated tucking / four‐handed care / gentle human touch vs standard care | no estimate extracted | NR | No studies |
SDB during endotracheal suctioning Facilitated tucking / four‐handed care / gentle human touch vs standard care | no estimate extracted | 1 study · 20 participants | Low Downgraded: risk of bias, imprecision |
SRB during endotracheal suctioning Facilitated tucking / four‐handed care / gentle human touch vs standard care | MD 0.9 [0.2, 1.6] | 1 study · 20 participants | Low Downgraded: risk of bias, imprecision |
— Facilitated tucking / four‐handed care / gentle human touch vs standard care | no estimate extracted | NR | No studies |
Familiar odour (breast milk smell) compared with standard care for pain during endotracheal suctioning
Population: neonates with mechanical ventilation
| Outcome | Effect | Evidence | Status / GRADE |
|---|---|---|---|
Validated pain scores Familiar odour (breast milk smell) vs standard care | no estimate extracted | NR | No studies |
PIPP during endotracheal suctioning Range of scale 0 to 21. Lower score = less pain Familiar odour (breast milk smell) vs standard care | no estimate extracted | 1 study · 40 participants | Low Downgraded: risk of bias, imprecision |
Physiological indicators Familiar odour (breast milk smell) vs standard care | no estimate extracted | NR | No studies |
Heart rate Familiar odour (breast milk smell) vs standard care | no estimate extracted | 1 study · 40 participants | Low Downgraded: risk of bias, imprecision |
SaO 2 during endotracheal suctioning Familiar odour (breast milk smell) vs standard care | no estimate extracted | 1 study · 40 participants | Low Downgraded: risk of bias, imprecision |
Behavioural indicators Familiar odour (breast milk smell) vs standard care | no estimate extracted | NR | No studies |
— Familiar odour (breast milk smell) vs standard care | no estimate extracted | NR | No studies |
White noise compared with standard care for pain during endotracheal suctioning
Population: neonates with mechanical ventilation
| Outcome | Effect | Evidence | Status / GRADE |
|---|---|---|---|
Validated pain scores White noise vs standard care | no estimate extracted | NR | No studies |
PIPP during endotracheal suctioning Range of scale 0 to 21 Lower score = less pain White noise vs standard care | no estimate extracted | 1 study · 40 participants | Low Downgraded: risk of bias, imprecision |
Physiological indicators White noise vs standard care | no estimate extracted | NR | No studies |
Heart rate White noise vs standard care | no estimate extracted | 1 study · 40 participants | Low Downgraded: risk of bias, imprecision |
SaO 2 White noise vs standard care | MD 2.25 | 1 study · 40 participants | Low Downgraded: risk of bias, imprecision |
Behavioural indicators White noise vs standard care | no estimate extracted | NR | No studies |
— White noise vs standard care | no estimate extracted | NR | No studies |