Next Article in Journal
The Removal of Pertechnetate from Aqueous Solution by Synthetic Hydroxyapatite: The Role of Reduction Reagents and Organic Ligands
Previous Article in Journal
Factors Influencing SARS-CoV-2 Infection Control Practices of Nurses Caring for COVID-19 Patients in South Korea: Based on Health Belief Model
 
 
Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
Journals
IJERPH
Volume 20
Issue 4
10.3390/ijerph20043226
ijerph-logo
Submit to this Journal Review for this Journal Propose a Special Issue
► Article Menu

Article Menu

share Share announcement Help format_quote Cite question_answer Discuss in SciProfiles thumb_up
...
Endorse textsms
...
Comment
first_page
settings
Order Article Reprints
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Systematic Review

Effect of Non-Pharmacological Methods in the Reduction of Neonatal Pain: Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

by
Inmaculada García-Valdivieso
1,*,
Benito Yáñez-Araque
2,
Eva Moncunill-Martínez
3,
M. Jesús Bocos-Reglero
4 and
Sagrario Gómez-Cantarino
5
1
General Hospital Mancha Centre (HGMC), Castilla-La Mancha Health Service (SESCAM), 13600 Alcázar de San Juan, Spain
2
Department of Physical Activity and Sports Sciences, University of Castilla-La Mancha, Toledo Campus, 45071 Toledo, Spain
3
Toledo University Hospital (HUT), Neonatal and Pediatric Oncology, Castilla-La Mancha Health Service (SESCAM), Theoretical Collaborator University of Castilla-La Mancha, Toledo Campus, 45071 Toledo, Spain
4
National Hospital of Paraplegics (HNP), Castilla-La Mancha Health Service (SESCAM), Theoretical Collaborator University of Castilla-La Mancha, Toledo Campus, 45071 Toledo, Spain
5
Faculty of Physiotherapy and Nursing, University of Castilla-La Mancha, Toledo Campus, 45071 Toledo, Spain
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2023, 20(4), 3226; https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph20043226
Submission received: 5 December 2022 / Revised: 9 February 2023 / Accepted: 10 February 2023 / Published: 12 February 2023
(This article belongs to the Section Health Care Sciences & Services)
Browse Figures
Review Reports Versions Notes

Abstract

:
In neonatology, neonates have traditionally been considered incapable of feeling pain, due to the immaturity of their nervous system. Currently, there is sufficient information on the perception of pain in neonates; however, this treatment at this crucial stage for development requires a better approach. For this reason, the aim of this study was to analyse the efficacy of non-pharmacological analgesia interventions during heel prick, and to assess their effects on heart rate (HR), premature infant pain profile (PIPP) and O2 saturation. A systematic review and meta-analysis was performed following the guidelines of the preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses (PRISMA), and the Cochrane collaboration handbook. The databases PubMed, Cochrane Library, Web of Science, Scopus, CINAHL and Science Direct were searched until the end of January 2022. The DerSimonian and Laird methods were used to estimate the effect size with a 95% confidence interval (CI95%). Effect size estimates were 0.05 (95% CI: −0.19, 0.29) for HR, −0.02 (95% CI: −0.24, 0.21) for PIPP scale, and −0.12 (95% CI: −0.29, 0.05) for O2 saturation. The non-pharmacological interventions analysed (breastfeeding, kangaroo-mother care method, oral sucrose and non-nutritive sucking) were not statistically significant in reducing neonatal pain, but did influence the decrease in pain score and a faster stabilisation of vital signs.

1. Introduction

Acute pain is defined as “an unpleasant somatic or visceral sensation caused by actual or potential tissue injury” [1]. Previously, it was believed that newborns did not have the capacity to experience pain because the myelination process of the nervous system was not complete yet. There is now enough evidence for the experience of neonatal pain, as the neurophysiological and anatomical components necessary for the transmission of the pain stimulus develop before 24 weeks’ gestational age [2]. In contrast, the nociceptive inhibitory mechanisms response for reducing pain require several months to mature [3]. After the first moments of life, newborns are subjected to a series of invasive procedures, the most frequent being heel pricks for screening for endocrinometabolic diseases [4,5]. The average number of these painful interventions increases when birth occurs before 37 weeks, and these newborns considered ”preterm” require admission in neonatal intensive care units (NICU), experiencing as many as 10–15 painful procedures per day [6]. According to the World Health Organization (WHO), there are around 15 million preterm births each year, and nationally in 2021, figures from the National Institute of Statistics (INE) showed that 20,189 births were preterm. This condition is one of the main causes of perinatal mortality and morbidity [7,8].
Studies show that unrelieved acute pain can affect the neurodevelopment of neonates, producing motor, cognitive, and behavioural alterations [9,10]. It is therefore necessary to modify clinical practice and attenuate stimuli in order to guarantee the comfort of these patients [11,12]. This paradigm shift has promoted the application of new models of care such as the newborn individualized developmental care and assessment program (NIDCAP) method. One of the purposes of this method is to assess the ability of newborns to cope with stress before, during and after procedures [13,14,15]. In addition, this method establishes a series of strategies including the use of non-pharmacological measures to prevent neonatal pain. Such measures include breastfeeding, the mother-kangaroo method, oral sucrose of glucose and non-nutritive sucking, which have emerged to prevent the side effects that drugs can induce in neonates due to pharmacokinetic and pharmacodynamics differences in respect to the adult patient [16,17,18]. It is known that hepatic metabolism is physiologically decreased, because the cytochrome P450-dependent enzymes are 30–50% lower than that in adults. The glomerular filtration rate is also decreased, and until the neonate reaches 6–12 months of age, its values do not match those of the adult. This results in a slower excretion of drugs, exerting a more intense and prolonged effect. Neonates exposed to the most commonly used opioids in NICU such as Morphine, Fentanyl or Midazolam may experience respiratory depression, seizures, nausea and vomiting, urinary retention and decreased intestinal motility [12,17].
The inability of newborns to verbalize pain perception has led to the development of scales for pain assessment and evaluation. These tools are based on the observation of physiological and behavioural changes that neonates experience as a result of pain [19]. Among the most widely used validated scales is the premature infant pain profile (PIPP) scale, used to assess acute and procedural pain in preterm infants up to 28 weeks of gestation. It consists of 7 items scored from 0 to 3, with a score of 12 or more indicating severe pain [20]. Similarly, the neonatal infant pain scale (NIPS) is widely used to assess acute pain in preterm infants under 37 weeks and consists of 6 items, which are scored from 0 to 1, with a score of 4 or more indicating severe pain [21].
According to the American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP), pain reduction in newborns remains an area that needs to be better addressed and, although there are studies that have evaluated the usefulness of using non-pharmacological analgesia methods, a consensus on their application has not been reached yet [17]. Therefore, the aim of this study was to analyse the efficacy of non-pharmacological analgesia methods during procedures such as heel prick and to assess their effects on the reduction of neonatal pain through variables such as heart rate (HR), PIPP score and O2 saturation. The outcome measures were chosen based on their physiological effect caused by pain, due to the fact that newborns tend to suffer oxygen desaturation as well as an increased heart rate.

2. Materials and Methods

This study was carried out with the preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses (PRISMA) guidelines [22] and following the recommendations of the Cochrane collaboration handbook [23]. The protocol has been registered in PROSPERO (registration number: CRD42022380996).
A systematic search of PubMed, Cochrane Library, Web of Science, Scopus, CINHAL and Science Direct was conducted until the end of January 2022. After examining the types of non-pharmacological treatment, the search strategy included the following terms: (“sucrose” OR “breastfeeding” OR “suction” OR “kangaroo-mother care method”) AND (“pain management” OR “pain measurement” OR “analgesia” OR “nursing care”) AND (“newborn infant”) AND (“neonatal intensive care units”). References cited in the selected articles were also reviewed for inclusion in this review.
Studies were selected according to the following inclusion criteria, including: (a) infants whose minimum gestational age was 28 weeks, without restriction of sex or ethnic group; (b) infants whose weight was greater than 1 kg; (c) infants whose Apgar test score was greater than 5 in the first 5 min; (d) a comparison between different methods of non-pharmacological analgesia; (e) a comparison of non-pharmacological analgesia methods with no intervention; (f) an assessment of neonatal pain using the PIPP and NIPS scales; and (g) a randomized controlled trial (RCT) or quasi-experimental design.
On the other hand, the exclusion criteria were studies: (a) involving infants with congenital anomalies; (b) not written in English or Spanish; or (c) ineligible by design as narrative reviews, observational studies or case reports. The following data were extracted from the selected studies: (a) information on authors and year of publication; (b) country of intervention; (c) sample characteristics (sample size, gestational age, birth weight, Apgar test and pain measurement); and (d) intervention characteristics (type and dosage used). Interventions were classified as: breastfeeding, mother-kangaroo method, oral sucrose or glucose and non-nutritive sucking, according to their characteristics.
The risk of bias of RCTs was assessed using the Cochrane RoB2 tool [24]. This tool includes the assessment of five domains: randomization process, deviations from intended interventions, missing data on outcomes, measurement of outcomes and selection of reported outcomes. The overall bias was considered as “low risk” if the study in question scored “low risk” in all domains, “some concern” if any domain was rated as “some concern”, and “high risk” if at least one domain was rated as “high risk” or several domains were rated as “some concern”. Furthermore, the risk of bias of non-randomized clinical trials was assessed using the ROBINS-I tool [25], which includes seven domains: confounding, selection of participants, classification of interventions, deviations from intended interventions, missing data on outcomes, measurement of outcomes and selection of reported outcomes. The risk of bias was classified as “low risk” if the study in question scored low in all domains, “moderate risk” if the rating was moderate for all domains, “serious risk” if the assessment was considered serious in at least one domain, and “critical risk” if the assessment was considered critical in at least one domain. In the selection process and data collection process, three authors (I.G.-V., B.Y.-A. and S.G.-C.) independently reviewed each publication to verify that it met the stated inclusion criteria, and then decisions on which data to include in the review were made jointly. In the risk of bias assessment, the members mentioned above worked together for both randomized controlled trial and quasi-experimental studies.
The standardized mean difference score using Cohen’s d-index was calculated for each of the neonatal pain variables (HR, PIPP scale and O2 saturation). The DerSimonian and Laird method was used to calculate the pooled effect size estimate with a 95% confidence interval (95% CI). In the statistical analysis, positive values indicated an increase in PIPP scores in the control group compared to the intervention group. Cohen’s d-statistic values below 0.2 indicated a weak effect, values around 0.5 indicated a moderate effect, and values above 0.8 indicated a strong effect [26].
The inconsistency of the results was assessed using the I2 statistic, and the values obtained were considered as: without important (0–30%), moderate (30–50%), substantial (50–75%) or considerable (75–100%). The p-statistic values were also evaluated. Sensitivity analyses were performed for each of the neonatal pain endpoints (HR, PIPP scale and O2 saturation), eliminating studies one by one in order to assess the robustness of the estimates obtained [22].
Publication bias was calculated by applying Egger’s asymmetric regression test [27], and a p < 0.10 was estimated to be statistically significant. Statistical analyses were performed using Stata V.15.1 software.

3. Results

The search identified 24 studies (Figure 1) [28,29,30,31,32,33,34,35,36,37,38,39,40,41,42,43,44,45,46,47,48,49,50,51] that were included in this systematic review, of which 6 were included in the meta-analysis [33,40,41,42,44,46]. With a total of 2246 participants, the studies were conducted on three continents (17 in Asia, 5 in USA, and 2 in Europe) and were published between 2011 and 2021. Included participants were between 29 and 39 weeks’ gestational age, with sample sizes ranging from 28 to 243 subjects. All interventions were performed in the NICU by trained professionals with extensive experience in newborn care. The duration of the interventions ranged from 2 to 80 min (Table 1).
For the measurement of neonatal pain, 6 studies used the NIPS scale and 18 used the PIPP scale. In addition, the control groups were without intervention in 8 studies and with routine health interventions in another 8 studies. As for the procedures performed in the intervention group for the reduction of neonatal pain, 8 tested the analgesic effect of breastfeeding, 12 tested the mother-kangaroo method, 4 tested the oral glucose at 20–25%, 9 tested oral sucrose at different concentrations ranging from 20–50% and tested 8 non-nutritive sucking.

3.1. Risk of Bias in the Studies

According to the RoB2 assessment of risk of bias in RCTs, 33.3% of the studies showed a high risk of bias, 60% showed a moderate risk of bias, and 6.7% showed a low risk of bias. Specifically, 93.3% of studies had a moderate to low risk of bias in the randomization process, 53.3% had a low risk of bias in the deviation from the intended interventions and 20% had a moderate risk of bias in the selection of outcomes (Figure 2). The evaluation of each study is shown below (Figure 3).
In non-randomized trials, the risk of bias assessment with the ROBINS-I scale revealed that 11.11% of studies had a critical risk of bias, 22.22% had a severe risk of bias, 44.44% had a moderate risk of bias and, finally, 22.22% had a low risk of bias. Specifically, 55.55% of the studies reflected a low risk of bias in the selection of participants, 44.44% reflected a moderate to severe risk of bias in the deviation from the intended interventions, and 33.33% reflected a critical risk of bias in the selection of outcomes (Figure 4).

3.2. Meta-Analysis

The pooled effect size was 0.05 (95% CI: −0.19, 0.29) for HR, with moderate inconsistency (I2 = 46.8%, p = 0.069); −0.02 (95% CI: −0.24, 0. 21) for the PIPP scale, with a non-significant inconsistency (I2 = 16.0%, p = 0.311); and −0.12 (95% CI: −0.29, 0.05) for O2 saturation, with a non-significant inconsistency (I2 = 0.0%, p = 0.664). The forest plot for the pooled effect size is presented in Figure 5.

3.3. Sensitivity Analysis

The pooled effect size estimate was unchanged for the variables HR, PIPP scale and O2 saturation when items were removed one by one from the analysis.

3.4. Publication Bias

No significant publication bias was detected for any of the pain estimation variables, as observed in Egger’s test for HR (p = 0.747), PIPP scale (p = 0.287), and O2 saturation (p = 0.106).

4. Discussion

This systematic review and meta-analysis examines the effects of non-pharmacological analgesia methods in reducing neonatal pain following invasive procedures. The results show that the interventions of breastfeeding, mother-kangaroo method, oral sucrose or glucose and non-nutritive sucking are not effective in reducing neonatal pain-related parameters such as HR, PIPP scale and O2 saturation.
Studies show that infants who were breastfed had lower scores on the PIPP scale and a more rapid stabilization of vital signs after heel lance [29,32,34]. The lactose rich content of breast milk and essential amino acids such as L-tryptophan promote the release of endogenous opioids such as beta-endorphins, which are responsible for reducing the transmission of pain to the nervous system. Furthermore, after ingestion, cholecystokinin (CCK), a neuropeptide that exerts its calming effect by generating drowsiness, is secreted [28,31,32,33]. These effects would highlight the ability of breastfeeding as one of the most common and beneficial methods to reduce pain, although such a reduction is not considered statistically significant [30,31,33]. Our data are consistent with a previous systematic review, which found that there was insufficient evidence on the analgesic effect of breastfeeding on neonatal pain responses [52]; however, it does have a greater efficacy on HR with respect to O2 saturation.
In relation to the impact of the mother-kangaroo method, research reports that the groups in which this intervention was applied obtained clinically lower values in the variables studied [36,37,38], but failed to reach statistical significance [35,42,43]. These results are consistent with those obtained in other studies [53,54,55], which indicate that there were no significant differences in HR, PIPP scale and O2 saturation between the intervention and control groups before, during and after heel prick [39,40,41]. In the same line, our findings suggest that, although the mother kangaroo method is capable of influencing the PIPP scale score, it has been found to lack a statistically significant effect. The mechanism by which the mother-kangaroo method exerts its analgesic effect is through skin-to-skin contact along with maternal smell, bonding and heartbeat. These mechanisms induce in the newborn the production of hormones such as oxytocin, which decreases the activity of the sympathetic nervous system and is associated with a state of sleep and relaxation, resulting in greater haemodynamic stability [35,42].
Our data also show that oral sucrose and non-nutritive sucking generate a more effective synergistic effect than each of these interventions alone. Due to the sweet taste of sucrose and the oral–tactile stimulation of non-nutritive sucking, serotonin and endorphin are released, producing an analgesic effect lasting between 5–10 min [44,46,49,51]. Specifically, of the three variables analysed, the PIPP score achieved the best results, although this systematic review was underpowered to detect significant differences. Our statements are compatible with previously published articles, as the results on the efficacy of using this technique are not conclusive [56,57,58]. Some studies argue that the combination of oral sucrose and non-nutritive suctioning is associated with a reduction in the HR and PIPP scale and an increase in O2 saturation [44,47,49,59,60]. In contrast, other studies show that such an intervention does not produce statistically significant differences when compared to routine care [45,48,50]. Furthermore, questions such as optimal dose and concentration or possible long-term adverse effects remain unresolved [50,57,58].
Although our results did not find significant effects, they highlight the importance of including new strategies that act prophylactically against acute pain caused by routine care in neonates. However, such strategies may contribute to limiting the use of drugs in the NICU (thus avoiding possible side effects), as they are considered a more natural alternative to the traditional pharmacological model. However, the studies reviewed do not show strong evidence in this regard. Knowledge is limited and there are contradictory responses, so the capacity of these analgesic methods needs to be studied further to build the confidence needed for their application [29,30,31].
Therefore, our findings demonstrate that, although there were no statistically significant differences in HR, PIPP scale and O2 saturation between the groups before, during and after the interventions, lower PIPP scale scores were found in the intervention groups compared to the control groups. In this regard, some authors suggest that decreased pain scores should not always be interpreted as pain relief, as further research on brain activity involved in neonatal nociception is needed [19,21]. The evaluation of techniques that categorize neonatal pain responses remains a clinical and scientific challenge [28]. Further examination of the validity of PIPP scores is therefore warranted, as they are based on the subjective observation of the assessor and should not be considered the sole parameter of assessment [20,32,50].
For this reason, other articles have studied the effects of non-pharmacological interventions on variables such as crying time or serum and salivary cortisol levels, finding that the duration of crying after the procedures was longer in the control groups than in the groups in which breastfeeding, mother-kangaroo method, oral sucrose or non-nutritive sucking had been administered previously [29,33,41,44,51]. Additionally, the biochemical index of pain as measured by cortisol showed that the levels of both plasma and saliva were equivalent and significantly lower in the intervention groups [33,61].
The inherent limitations of our study include the high risk of bias in the included articles. Larger sample sizes and more defined gestational ages would be necessary to increase the external validity of the results. Similarly, the studies include populations with different characteristics in relation to the neurodevelopmental status of newborns, which could affect physiological and behavioural functions, leading to a clinical heterogeneity that could alter the results. Similarly, the differences in the pain measurement scale used, the type of intervention or type of control group and the dose used could have influenced the homogeneity of the studies. Finally, meta-analysis was only performed in six studies, as the rest of the articles did not include sufficient data to calculate the effect size. Due to all these issues, the findings should be interpreted with caution.
This systematic review and meta-analysis highlights the need for a multimodal approach to prevent neonatal pain and a search for alternatives to pharmacological therapy. For nurses, as the main care providers, it implies the implementation of new methodologies in daily routines, training in the observation and assessment of neonatal pain and the creation of an individualized and humanized care plan [62,63]. For research, this review implies the identification of gaps in existing knowledge and the need for further studies to test the safety and efficacy of the proposed interventions. Future research is recommended to examine what long-term consequences untreated pain may have, or whether the impact of repeated doses of oral sucrose in the neonatal stage may predispose newborns to the development of diabetes in childhood.

5. Conclusions

This study allows us to conclude that the non-pharmacological techniques analysed (such as breastfeeding, the mother-kangaroo method, oral sucrose or glucose and non-nutritive sucking) are not effective in reducing neonatal pain derived from invasive procedures such as heel prick. Despite these results, we must acknowledge their influence in decreasing pain as measured by the PIPP scale, and in the more rapid stabilization of HR and O2 saturation. Of all analgesic methods, breastfeeding is considered the treatment of first choice because of its safety, ease of administration and availability, in addition to its multiple benefits, which have been widely studied both nutritionally and immunologically.

Author Contributions

Conceptualization, I.G.-V. and S.G.-C.; methodology, I.G.-V.; software, B.Y.-A.; validation, B.Y.-A., E.M.-M. and M.J.B.-R.; formal analysis, I.G.-V.; investigation, I.G.-V.; resources, S.G.-C.; data curation, E.M.-M. and M.J.B.-R.; writing—original draft preparation, I.G.-V.; writing—review and editing, I.G.-V.; visualization, B.Y.-A.; supervision, S.G.-C.; project administration, B.Y.-A. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

This research received no external funding.

Institutional Review Board Statement

Not applicable.

Informed Consent Statement

Not applicable.

Data Availability Statement

Not applicable.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

References

  1. Obeidat, H.M.; Dwairej, D.A.; Aloweidi, A.S. Pain in preterm infants: Different perspectives. J. Perinat. Educ. 2021, 30, 185–195. [Google Scholar] [PubMed]
  2. Johnston, C. Neonatal pain: A journey spanning three decades. Paediatr. Neonatal Pain 2020, 2, 33–39. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  3. Brewer, C.L.; Baccei, M.L. The development of pain circuits and unique effects of neonatal injury. J. Neural Transm. 2020, 127, 467–479. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  4. Perry, M.; Tan, Z.; Chen, J.; Weidig, T.; Xu, W.; Cong, X.S. Neonatal pain perceptions and current practice. Crit. Care Nurs. Clin. N. Am. 2018, 30, 549–561. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  5. Vinall, J.; Grunau, R.E. Impact of repeated procedural pain related stress in infants born very preterm. Pediatr. Res. 2014, 75, 584–587. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  6. Fernández, M.G.E.; González-Pacheco, N.; Sánchez-Redondo, M.D.; Cernada, M.; Martín, A.; Pérez-Muñuzuri, A.; Boix, H.; Couce, M.L. Sedoanalgesia en las unidades neonatales. In Anales de Pediatría; Elsevier Doyma: Barcelona, Spain, 2020; Volume 95, pp. 126.e1–126.e11. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  7. Vogel, J.P.; Chawanpaiboon, S.; Moller, A.-B.; Watananirun, K.; Bonet, M.; Lumbiganon, P. The global epidemiology of preterm birth. Best Pr. Res. Clin. Obstet. Gynaecol. 2018, 52, 3–12. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  8. Instituto Nacional de Estadística. Nacimientos Por Tipo de Parto, Tiempo de Gestación y Grupo de Edad de la Madre; Instituto Nacional de Estadística: Madrid, Spain, 2021. [Google Scholar]
  9. Shiff, I.; Bucsea, O.; Pillai Riddell, R. Psychosocial and neurobiological vulnerabilities of the hospitalized preterm infant and relevant non-pharmacological pain mitigation strategies. Front. Pediatr. 2021, 9, 988. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  10. Haraldsdottir, K.; Watson, A.M.; Goss, K.N.; Beshish, A.; Pegelow, D.F.; Palta, M.; Tetri, L.H.; Barton, G.P.; Brix, M.D.; Centanni, R.M.; et al. Impaired autonomic function in adolescents born preterm. Physiol. Rep. 2018, 6, e13620. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  11. Collados-Gómez, L.; Camacho-Vicente, V.; Gónzalez-Villalba, M.; Sanz-Prades, G.; Bellón-Vaquerizo, B. Neonatal nurses’ perceptions of pain management. Enferm. Intensiv. 2018, 29, 41–47. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  12. McPherson, C.; Miller, S.P.; El-Dib, M.; Massaro, A.N.; Inder, T.E. The influence of pain, agitation, and their management on the immature brain. Pediatr. Res. 2020, 88, 168–175. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  13. Harrillo-Acevedo, F.D.; Rico-Becerra, J.I.; López-Martínez, A. The philosophy of the Developmental centered care of the premature infant (NIDCAP): A literature review. Enferm. Glob. 2017, 16, 577–589. [Google Scholar]
  14. Sheldon, R.E. Developmental care for preemies and their families: One Neonatologist’s journey toward NIDCAP practice. Neo Rev. 2017, 18, 568–575. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  15. Ohlsson, A.; Jacbos, S.E. NIDCAP: A systematic review and meta-analyses of randomized controlled trials. Pediatrics 2013, 131, 881–893. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  16. Mangat, A.K.; Oei, J.L.; Chen, K.; Quah-Smith, I.; Schmözler, G.M. A review of non-pharmacological treatments for pain management in newborn infants. Children 2018, 5, 130. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  17. AAP; Committee on Fetus and Newborn; Section on Anesthesiology and Pain Medicine. Prevention and management of procedural pain in the neonate: An update. Pediatrics 2016, 137, 1–13. [Google Scholar]
  18. Aguilar-Cordero, M.J.; Baena-García, L.; Sánchez-López, A.M.; Mur-Villar, N.; Fernández-Castillo, R.; García, I. Non pharmacological methods to reduce pain in newborns: A systematic review. Nutr. Hosp. 2015, 32, 2496–2507. [Google Scholar]
  19. Olsson, E.; Ahl, H.; Bengtsson, K.; Vejayaram, D.N.; Norman, E.; Bruschettini, M.; Eriksson, M. The use and reporting of neonatal pain scales: A systematic review of randomized trials. Pain 2020, 162, 353–360. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  20. Gibbins, S.; Stevens, B.J.; Yamada, J.; Dionne, K.; Campbell-Yeo, M.; Lee, G.; Caddell, K.; Johnston, C.; Taddio, A. Validation of the Premature Infant Pain Profile-Revised (PIPP-R). Early Hum. Dev. 2014, 90, 189–193. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  21. Sarkaria, E.; Gruszfeld, D. Assessing neonatal pain with NIPS and COMFORT-B: Evaluation of NICU’s staff competences. Pain Res. Manag. 2022, 16, 8545372. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  22. Page, M.J.; McKenzie, J.E.; Bossuyt, P.M.; Boutron, I.; Hoffman, T.C.; Mulrow, C.D.; Shamseer, L.; Tetzlaff, J.M.; Akl, E.A.; Brennan, S.E.; et al. The PRISMA 2020 statement: An updated guideline for reporting systematic reviews. BMJ 2021, 372, n71. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  23. Cumpston, M.; Li, T.; Page, M.J.; Chandler, J.; Welch, V.A.; Higgins, J.P.; Thomas, J. Updated guidance for trusted systematic reviews: A new edition of the Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions. Cochrane Database Syst. Rev. 2019, 10, ED000142. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  24. Sterne, J.A.; Savovic, J.; Page, M.J.; Elbers, R.G.; Blencowe, N.S.; Boutron, I.; Cates, C.J.; Cheng, H.Y.; Corbett, M.S.; Eldridge, S.M.; et al. RoB 2: A revised tool for assessing risk of bias in randomized trials. BMJ 2019, 366, 48–98. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  25. Sterne, J.A.; Hernán, M.A.; Reeves, B.C.; Savovic, J.; Berkman, N.D.; Viswanathan, M.; Henry, D.; Altman, D.G.; Ansari, M.T.; Boutron, I.; et al. ROBINS-I: A tool for assessing risk of bias in non-randomized studies of interventions. BMJ 2016, 355, 19–49. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  26. Lachenbruch, P.A.; Cohen, J. Statistical power analysis for the behavioural sciences (2nd ed.). J. Am. Stat. Assoc. 1989, 84, 1096. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  27. Sterne, J.A.; Egger, M.; Smith, G.D. Systematic reviews in health care: Investigating and dealing with publication and other biases in meta-analysis. BMJ 2001, 323, 101–105. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  28. Avcin, E.; Kucukoglu, S. The effect of breastfeeding, kangaroo care, and facilitated tucking positioning in reducing the pain during heel stick in neonates. J. Pediatr. Nurs. 2021, 61, 410–416. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  29. Aydin, D.; İnal, S. Effects of breastfeeding and heel warming on pain levels during heel stick in neonates. Int. J. Nurs. Pract. 2019, 25, 127–134. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  30. Bembich, S.; Cont, G.; Causin, E.; Paviotti, G.; Marzari, P.; Demarini, S. Infant analgesia with a combination of breast milk, glucose, or maternal holding. Pediatrics 2018, 142, 16–34. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  31. Benoit, B.; Newman, A.; Martin-Misener, R.; Latimer, M.; Campbell-Yeo, M. The influence of breastfeeding on cortical and bio-behavioural indicators of procedural pain in newborns: Findings of a randomized controlled trial. Early Hum. Dev. 2021, 154, 105–308. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  32. Lan, H.Y.; Yang, L.; Lin, C.H.; Hsieh, K.H.; Chang, Y.C.; Yin, T. Breastmilk as a multisensory intervention for relieving pain during newborn screening procedures: A randomized control trial. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2021, 18, 123–130. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  33. Tasci, B.; Kuzlu Ayyildiz, T. The calming effect of maternal breast milk odor on term infant: A randomized controlled trial. Breastfeed Med. 2020, 15, 724–730. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  34. Wu, H.P.; Yin, T.; Hsieh, K.H.; Lan, H.Y.; Feng, R.C.; Chang, Y.C.; Liaw, J.J. Integration of different sensory interventions from mother’s breast milk for preterm infant pain during peripheral venipuncture procedures: A prospective randomized controlled trial. J. Nurs. Scholarsh 2020, 52, 75–84. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  35. Cong, X.; Ludington-Hoe, S.M.; Walsh, S. Randomized crossover trial of kangaroo care to reduce biobehavioral pain responses in preterm infants: A pilot study. Biol. Res. Nurs. 2011, 13, 204–216. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  36. Kapoor, A.; Khan, M.A.; Beohar, V. Pain relief in late preterm neonates: A comparative study of kangaroo mother care, oral dextrose 50%, and supine nesting position. Int. J. Appl. Basic Med. Res. 2021, 11, 188–191. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  37. Murmu, J.; Venkatnarayan, K.; Thapar, R.K.; Shaw, S.C.; Dalal, S.S. When alternative female kangaroo care is provided by other immediate postpartum mothers, it reduces postprocedural pain in preterm babies more than swaddling. Acta Paediatr. 2017, 106, 411–415. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  38. Nimbalkar, S.M.; Chaudhary, N.S.; Gadhavi, K.V.; Phatak, A. Kangaroo mother care in reducing pain in preterm neonates on heel prick. Indian J. Pediatr. 2013, 80, 6–10. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  39. Nimbalkar, S.; Shukla, V.V.; Chauhan, V.; Phatak, A.G.; Patel, D.; Chapla, A.; Nimbalkar, A. Blinded randomized crossover trial: Skin-to-skin care vs. sucrose for preterm neonatal pain. J. Perinatol. 2020, 40, 896–901. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  40. Sen, E.; Manav, G. Effect of Kangaroo Care and Oral Sucrose on Pain in Premature Infants: A Randomized Controlled Trial. Pain Manag. Nurs. 2020, 21, 556–564. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  41. Seo, Y.S.; Lee, J.; Ahn, H.Y. Effects of Kangaroo Care on Neonatal Pain in South Korea. J. Trop. Pediatr. 2016, 62, 246–249. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  42. Shukla, V.; Chapla, A.; Uperiya, J.; Nimbalkar, A.; Phatak, A.; Nimbalkar, S. Sucrose vs. skin to skin care for preterm neonatal pain control: A randomized control trial. J. Perinatol. 2018, 38, 1365–1369. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  43. Shukla, V.V.; Chaudhari, A.J.; Nimbalkar, S.M.; Phatak, A.G.; Patel, D.V.; Nimbalkar, A.S. Skin-to-skin care by mother vs. father for preterm neonatal pain: A randomized control trial. Int. J. Pediatr. 2021, 88, 68–87. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  44. Gao, H.; Li, M.; Gao, H.; Xu, G.; Li, F.; Zhou, J.; Zou, Y.; Jiang, H. Effect of non-nutritive sucking and sucrose alone and in combination for repeated procedural pain in preterm infants: A randomized controlled trial. Int. J. Nurs. Stud. 2018, 83, 25–33. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  45. Kumari, S.; Datta, V.; Rehan, H. Comparison of the efficacy of oral 25% glucose with oral 24% sucrose for pain relief during heel lance in preterm neonates: A double blind randomized controlled trial. J. Trop. Pediatr. 2017, 63, 30–35. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  46. Lima, A.G.; Santos, V.S.; Nunes, M.S.; Barreto, J.A.; Ribeiro, C.J.; Carvalho, J.; Ribeiro, M.C.O. Glucose solution is more effective in relieving pain in neonates than non-nutritive sucking: A randomized clinical trial. Eur. J. Pain 2017, 21, 159–165. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  47. Peng, H.-F.; Yin, T.; Yang, L.; Wang, C.; Chang, Y.-C.; Jeng, M.-J.; Liaw, J.-J. Non-nutritive sucking, oral breast milk, and facilitated tucking relieve preterm infant pain during heel-stick procedures: A prospective, randomized controlled trial. Int. J. Nurs. Stud. 2018, 77, 162–170. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  48. Perroteau, A.; Nanquette, M.-C.; Rousseau, A.; Renolleau, S.; Bérard, L.; Mitanchez, D.; Leblanc, J. Efficacy of facilitated tucking combined with non-nutritive sucking on very preterm infants’ pain during the heel-stick procedure: A randomized controlled trial. Int. J. Nurs. Stud. 2018, 86, 29–35. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  49. Silveira, A.; Christoffel, M.M.; Velarde, L.G.C.; Rodrigues, E.D.C.; Magesti, B.N.; Souza, R.O. Effect of glucose and non-nutritive sucking on puncture pain in premature infants: A crossover clinical trial. Rev. Esc. Enferm. USP 2021, 55, 32–37. [Google Scholar]
  50. Stevens, B.; Yamada, J.; Campbell-Yeo, M.; Gibbins, S.; Harrison, D.; Dionne, K.; Taddio, A.; McNair, C.; Willan, A.; Ballantyne, M.; et al. The minimally effective dose of sucrose for procedural pain relief in neonates: A randomized controlled trial. BMC Pediatr. 2018, 18, 85–93. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  51. Thakkar, P.; Arora, K.; Goyal, K.; Das, R.R.; Javadekar, B.; Aiyer, S.; Panigrahi, S. To evaluate and compare the efficacy of combined sucrose and non-nutritive sucking for analgesia in newborns undergoing minor painful procedure: A randomized controlled trial. J. Perinatol. 2015, 36, 67–70. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  52. Harrison, D.; Reszel, J.; Bueno, M.; Sampson, M.; Shah, V.S.; Taddio, A.; Larocque, C.; Turner, L. Breastfeeding for procedural pain in infants beyond the neonatal period. Cochrane Database Syst. Rev. 2016, 10, 112–148. [Google Scholar]
  53. Johnston, C.; Campbell-Yeo, M.; Fernandes, A.; Inglis, D.; Streiner, D.; Zee, R. Skin-to-skin care for procedural pain in neonates. Cochrane Database Syst. Rev. 2017, 2, 1–83. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  54. Boundy, E.O.; Dastjerdi, R.; Spiegelman, D.; Fawzi, W.W.; Missmer, S.A.; Lieberman, E.; Kajeepeta, S.; Wall, S.; Chan, G.J. Kangaroo Mother Care and Neonatal Outcomes: A Meta-analysis. Pediatrics 2016, 137, e20152238. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  55. Olsson, E.; Ahlsén, G.; Eriksson, M. Skin-to-skin contact reduces near-infrared spectroscopy pain responses in premature infants during blood sampling. Acta Paediatr. 2016, 105, 376–380. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  56. Gao, H.; Gao, H.; Xu, G.; Li, M.; Du, S.; Li, F.; Zhang, H.; Wang, D. Efficacy and safety of repeated oral sucrose for repeated procedural pain in neonates: A systematic review. Int. J. Nurs. Stud. 2016, 62, 118–125. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  57. Oliveira, D.J.D.; Medeiros, K.S.; Sarmento, A.C.A.; Oliveira, F.J.D.; Costa, A.P.F.; Souza, N.L.; Gonçalves, A.K.; Silva, M.D.L.C. Use of glucose for pain management in premature neonates: A systematic review and meta-analysis protocol. BMJ Open 2021, 11, e052901. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  58. Stevens, B.; Yamada, J.; Ohlsson, A.; Haliburton, S.; Shorkey, A. Sucrose for analgesia in newborn infants undergoing painful procedures. Cochrane Database Syst. Rev. 2016, 7, 1–256. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  59. Guo, W.; Liu, X.; Zhou, X.; Wu, T.; Sun, J. Efficacy and safety of combined nonpharmacological interventions for repeated procedural pain in preterm neonates: A systematic review of randomized controlled trials. Int. J. Nurs. Stud. 2019, 102, 103471. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  60. Hatfield, L.A.; Murphy, N.; Karp, K.; Polomano, R.C. A systematic review of behavioural and environmental interventions for procedural pain management in preterm infants. J. Pediatr. Nurs. 2019, 44, 22–30. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  61. Badiee, Z.; Asghari, M.; Mohammadizadeh, M. The calming effect of maternal breast milk odor on premature infants. Pediatr. Neonatol. 2013, 54, 322–325. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  62. Gómez-Cantarino, S.; García-Valdivieso, I.; Moncunill-Martínez, E.; Yáñez-Araque, B.; Ugarte Gurrutxaga, M.I. Developing a family-centered care model in the neonatal intensive care unit (NICU): A new vision to manage healthcare. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2020, 17, 7197. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  63. Gómez-Cantarino, S.; García-Valdivieso, I.; Dios-Aguado, M.; Yáñez-Araque, B.; Molina Gallego, B.; Moncunill-Martínez, E. Nursing perspective of the humanized care of the neonate and family: A systematic review. Children 2021, 8, 35. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
Ijerph 20 03226 g001 550
Figure 1. Flow chart for study selection.
Figure 1. Flow chart for study selection.
Ijerph 20 03226 g001
Ijerph 20 03226 g002 550
Figure 2. Risk of bias assessment in randomized controlled trials (RoB2).
Figure 2. Risk of bias assessment in randomized controlled trials (RoB2).
Ijerph 20 03226 g002
Ijerph 20 03226 g003 550
Figure 3. Risk of bias assessment for each included study.
Figure 3. Risk of bias assessment for each included study.
Ijerph 20 03226 g003
Ijerph 20 03226 g004 550
Figure 4. Risk of bias assessment in quasi-experimental studies (ROBINS-I).
Figure 4. Risk of bias assessment in quasi-experimental studies (ROBINS-I).
Ijerph 20 03226 g004
Ijerph 20 03226 g005 550
Figure 5. Forest plot for the pooled effect size of interventions for neonatal pain variables (HR, PIPP scale and O2 saturation) [33,40,41,42,44,46].
Figure 5. Forest plot for the pooled effect size of interventions for neonatal pain variables (HR, PIPP scale and O2 saturation) [33,40,41,42,44,46].
Ijerph 20 03226 g005
Table
Table 1. Characteristics of included studies.
Table 1. Characteristics of included studies.
Author and YearCountrySample CharacteristicsIntervention Characteristics
n (Girls)Gestational Age
(Weeks)		Birth Weight
(kg)		Apgar Test 5′Pain MeasurementInterventionCharacteristicsDose Certainty of the Evidence GRADE
Avcin et al., 2021 [28]TurkeyIG1: 35 (15)
IG2: 35 (18)
IG3: 35 (15)
CG: 35 (18)		IG1: 38.48
IG2: 38.62
IG3: 38.42
CG: 38.28 		IG1: 3.184
IG2: 3.293
IG3: 3.261
CG: 3.361		NANIPS scale
IG1: 2.64/6.02/2.88
IG2: 2.85/6.20/3.03
IG3: 2.60/5.97/2.40
CG: 2.66/6.31/3.45		IG1: BF
IG2: KMC
IG3: Contention
CG: Routine care 		BF 5 min before, KMC 15 min before, lateral decubitus restraint 1 min before, during and after. NIPS scale 1 min before, during and after heel prick. BF on demand High
Aydin et al., 2019 [29]TurkeyIG1: 50 (25)
IG2: 50 (25)
CG: 50 (25)		IG1: 39.14
IG2: 39.36
CG: 38.98 		IG1: 3.344
IG2: 3.394
CG: 3.241 		NANIPS scale
IG1: 6.10
IG2: 4.44
CG: 6.42		IG1: Heel warm-up
IG2: BF
CG: Routine care 		3–5 min before thermal bag water at 40° on the heel. 1 min before BF up to 2 min after. NIPS scale during heel prick.BF on demandModerate
Bembich et al., 2018 [30]ItalyIG1: 20 (11)
IG2: 20 (12)
IG2: 20 (11)
IG4: 20 (8)		IG1: 39.6
IG2: 39.8
IG3: 39.8
IG4: 39.9 		IG1: 3.354
IG2: 3.155
IG3: 3.429
IG4: 3.298 		NANIPS scale
IG1: 5.00
IG2: 5.50
IG3: 2.00
IG4: 2.50		IG1: Oral glucose 20%
IG2: Expressed breast milk
IG3: KMC + oral glucose 20%
IG4: BF		2 min before glucose. Expressed breast milk 2 min before. KMC during. BF 2 min before and during the puncture. NIPS scale during heel prick.2 mL glucose 20%
2 mL BF		Moderate
Benoit et al., 2021 [31]CanadaIG: 18 (6)
CG: 19 (8)		IG: 39.3
CG: 39.5		IG: 3.508
CG: 3.318 		IG: 9
CG: 9		PIPP scale
IG: 4.7/4.7/5.0/4.4
CG: 4.1/4.5/3.9/4.3		IG: BF + KMC
CG: Oral sucrose 24% + NNS		BF and sucrose 2 min before.
PIPP scale at 30, 60, 90 and 120 s after heel prick.		BF on demand
0.24 mL sucrose 24%		Moderate
Lan et al., 2021 [32]TaiwanIG2: 40 (18)
IG3: 40 (20)
CG: 40 (23)		IG1: 39.07
IG2: 38.91
CG: 39.42		IG1: 3.109
IG2: 3.070
CG: 3.121
IG1: 8.98
IG2: 8.98
CG: 9		NIPS scale
IG1: 0.46
IG2: 0.42
CG: 0.61		IG1: BF odour + Routine care
IG2: Odour + BF taste + Routine care
CG: Routine care		3 min before, cotton wool impregnated with BF near the nose, removed 5 min later. 2 min before and during heel prick, BF by drip syringe. NIPS scale 5 min before, during and after.3 mL BFModerate
Tasci et al., 2020 [33]TurkeyIG: 42 (ND)
CG: 42 (ND)		IG: 38–42
CG: 38–42 		IG: 2.5–4
CG: 2.5–4 		IG: 8
CG: 8		NIPS scale
IG: 0.02/2.00/0.36
CG: 0.12/4.62/1.83		IG: BF odour
CG: Formula milk odour 		Filter paper impregnated with milk near the nose 3 min before, removed 9 min after. NIPS scale before, during and 2 min after heel prick. 2 mL BF
2 mL formula milk		Moderate
Wu et al., 2020 [34]TaiwanIG1: 34 (ND)
IG2: 34 (ND)
IG3: 36 (ND)
CG: 36 (ND)		IG1: 32.25
IG2: 32.51
IG3: 32.33
CG: 32.64 		IG1: 1.774 IG2: 1.795IG3: 1.767 CG: 1.790 IG1: 8.09
IG2: 7.91
IG3: 7.97
CG: 8.03		PIPP scale
IG1: 0/13.0/7.0
IG2: 0/13.5/7.5
IG3: 0/10.0/5.0
CG: 0/14.5/8.0		IG1: BF odour or taste
IG2: BF odour or taste + Heartbeat sound
IG3: BF odour or taste + Heartbeat sound + NNS CG: Routine care 		3 min before cotton wool impregnated with BF near the nose, removed 10 min later. 2 min before breast milk. Reproduction of mother’s heartbeat of each newborn 3 min before, up to 10 min after. Oral–tactile stimulation. PIPP scale 5 min before, during and after the heel prick.2 mL BFLow
Cong et al., 2011 [35]USAIG1: 18 (6)
IG2: 10 (5)		IG1: 31.5
IG2: 32		IG1: 1.779
IG2: 1.577		NAEscala PIPP
IG1: 13.63/17.05 vs. 13.25/16.09
IG2: 8.60/10.60 vs. 9.75 14.33		IG1: KMC 80 vs. Incubator
IG2: KMC 30 vs. Incubator		KMC 60 min before and 20 min after vs. 60 min incubator rest.
KMC 10 min before and 20 min after vs. 30 min incubator rest. PIPP scale at 30, 60 s after heel prick.		KMC 80 and 30 minHigh
Kapoor et al., 2021 [36]IndiaIG1: 45 (22)
IG2: 54 (23)
CG: 50 (22)		IG1: 36
IG2: 36
CG: 35		NAIG1: >5
IG2: >5
CG: >5
Escala PIPP
IG1: 8.42
IG2: 8.76
CG: 13.08		IG1: KMC
IG2: Oral sucrose 50%
CG: Contention		KMC before and sucrose 2 min before. Supine restraint.
PIPP scale 30 s after heel prick.		KMC 30 min
0.5 mL sucrose 50%		Low
Murmu et al., 2017 [37]IndiaIG1: 17 (6)
IG2: 17 (6)
IG3: 17 (6)		IG1: 32
IG2: 32
IG3: 32		IG1: 1.824
IG2: 1.824
IG3: 1.824		IG1: 8
IG2: 8
IG3: 8		Escala PIPP
IG1: 10.59
IG2: 11.24
IG3: 12.96		IG1: KMC + alternative Kangaroo + Contention
IG2: Alternative Kangaroo + Contention + KMC
IG3: Contention + KMC + alternative Kangaroo		KMC and alternative kangaroo before and during heel prick. Prone restraint. PIPP scale 30 s after heel prick.KMC 30 minModerate
Nimbalkar et al., 2013 [38]IndiaIG: 19 (ND)
CG: 28 (ND)		IG: 34.02
CG: 34.02		IG: 1.730
CG: 1.730		NAEscala PIPP
IG: 5.38
CG: 10.23		IG: KMC
CG: Contention		KMC before, during and after.
Prone restraint 15 min.
PIPP scale 30 s after heel prick.		KMC 15 +15 min
Moderate
Nimbalkar et al., 2020 [39]IndiaIG1: 50 (22)
IG2: 50 (23)		IG1: 33.60
IG2: 33.60		IG1: 1.604
IG2: 1.604		NAEscala PIPP
IG1: 3.40/6.98/3.57
IG2: 2.75/6.84/3.11		IG1: KMC + oral sucrose 24%
IG2: Oral sucrose 24% + KMC 		KMC before, during and after 1st heel prick, sucrose 2 min before 2nd heel prick, and vice versa.
PIPP scale before, 1 min and 5 min after heel prick.		KMC 15 min
0.5–1 mL sucrose 24%		Moderate
Sen et al., 2020 [40]TurkeyIG: 32 (18)
CG: 32 (14)		IG: 34.38
CG: 34.95		IG: 2.102
CG: 2.244		NAEscala PIPP
IG: 4/7/3
CG: 5/7/4		IG: KMC
CG: Oral sucrose 24%		KMC before heel prick and sucrose 2 min before. PIPP scale before, during and 2 min after heel prick.KMC 15 min
0.5 mL sucrose 24%		High
Seo et al., 2016 [41]South KoreaIG: 26 (10)
CG: 30 (17		IG: 38.66
CG: 38.36		IG: 3.203
CG: 3.043		IG: 8.7
CG: 8.9		Escala PIPP
IG: 2.0/4.1/4.5/2.9
CG: 2.4/6.3/9.8/8.2		IG: KMC
CG: Routine care		KMC before, during and after.
PIPP scale before, during, 1 min and 2 min after heel prick. 		KMC 10 + 3 minModerate
Shukla et al., 2018 [42]IndiaIG: 50 (18)
CG: 50 (30)		IG: 31.68
CG: 33.90		IG: 1.460
CG: 1.780		NAEscala PIPP
IG: 7.74
CG: 8.1		IG: KMC
CG: Oral sucrose 24%		KMC before, during and after.
Sucrose 2 min before.
PIPP scale 30 s after heel prick. 		KMC 10 min
0.2 mL sucrose 24%		Moderate
Shukla et al., 2021 [43]IndiaIG1: 32 (ND)
IG2: 32 (ND)		IG1: 34.28
IG2: 34.28		IG1: 1.665
IG2: 1.665		NAEscala PIPP
IG1: 3.20/8.59/3.80
IG2: 3.02/8.27/3.94		IG1: KMC + Father kangaroo
IG2: Father kangaroo + MMC		KMC before and during 1st heel prick, parent-kangaroo before and during 2nd heel prick, and vice versa. PIPP scale before, 1 and 5 min after.KMC 15 min Moderate
Gao et al., 2018 [44]ChinaIG1: 22 (7)
IG2: 21 (11)
IG3: 22 (8)
CG: 21 (8)		IG1: 31.9
IG2: 31.7
IG3: 32.0
CG: 31.3		IG1: 1.767
IG2: 1.780
IG3: 1.697
CG: 1.682		IG1: 8.8
IG2: 8.9
IG3: 8.8
CG: 8.7		PIPP scale
IG1: 9.3/6.8
IG2: 10.1/7.4
IG3: 4.4/3.0
CG: 13.3/10.6		IG1: NNS
IG2: Oral sucrose 20%
IG3: NNS + Oral sucrose 20%
CG: Routine care		NNS and sucrose 2 min before. PIPP scale 15 s before and 30 s after heel prick. NNS 2 min
1 mL sucrose 20%		Low
Kumari et al., 2017 [45]IndiaIG1: 47 (29)
IG2: 47 (26)		IG1: 35.56
IG2: 35.53		IG1: 2.417
IG2: 2.685		IG1: >7
IG2: >7		PIPP scale
IG1: 1.13/3.0/1.7/2.0
IG2: 1.49/2.74/1.72/1.74		IG1: Oral sucrose 24%
IG2: Oral glucose 25%		2 min before sucrose or glucose.
PIPP scale before, 30 s, 1 min and 2 min after heel prick. 		1 mL sucrose 24%
1 mL glucose 25%		High
Lima et al., 2017 [46]BrazilIG: 40 (24)
CG: 38 (18)		IG: 39.0
CG: 39.05		IG: 3.300
CG: 3.230		IG: 9.8
CG: 9.7		NIPS scale
IG: 3.3
CG: 5.6		IG: Oral glucose 25%
CG: NNS		Glucose 2 min before. NNS before and during. NIPS scale 2 min before and during heel prick.NNS 2 min
2 mL glucose 25%		Moderate
Peng et al., 2018 [47]TaiwanIG1: 37 (ND)
IG2: 36 (ND)
CG: 36 (ND)		IG1: 31.28
IG2: 31.31
CG: 31.16		IG1: 1.572
IG2: 1.559
CG: 1.556		IG1: 7.38
IG2: 7.32
CG: 7.28		PIPP scale
IG1: 2.6/4.3/1.4
IG2: 2.6/3.6/1.1
CG: 5.6/6.9/2.6		IG1: NNS + BF
IG2: NNS + BF + Contention
CG: Routine care		NNS y BF 2 min before. PIPP scale 10 min before, during and 10 min after heel prick. NNS 2 min
0.5–2.0 mL BF		Low
Perroteau et al., 2018 [48]FranceIG: 30 (15)
CG: 29 (16)		IG: 29.0
CG: 30.0		IG: 1.330
CG: 1.280		NAPIPP scale
IG: 6.0/12.0
CG: 7.0/13.0		IG: NNS + Contention
CG: NNS		NNS after. Contention before, during and after. PIPP scale 15 s before and 30 s after heel prick.NNS 3 min
Moderate
Silveira et al., 2021 [49]BrazilIG1: 34 (17)
IG2: 34 (17)
IG3: 34 (17)		IG1: 33.48
IG2: 33.48
IG3: 33.48		IG1: 1.851
IG2: 1.851
IG3: 1.851		IG1: ≥7
IG2: ≥7
IG3: ≥7		PIPP scale
IG1: 3.3/5.5
IG2: 3.3/4.6
IG3: 4.0/4.2		IG1: NNS
IG2: Oral glucose 25%
IG3: NNS + Oral glucose 25%		NNS before and during, frequency > 32 suctions/min. Glucose 2 min before. PIPP scale 30 s before and 5 min after heel prick.NNS 2 min
1 mL glucose 25%		High
Stevens et al., 2018 [50]CanadaIG1: 81 (44)
IG2: 81 (32)
IG3: 81 (41)		IG1: 32.6
IG2: 32.5
IG3: 32.7		IG1: 2.002
IG2: 1.933
IG3: 2.055		NAPIPP scale
IG1: 6.8/7.0
IG2: 6.8/6.9
IG3: 6.7/6.7		IG1: 0,1 mL oral sucrose 24%
IG2: 0.5 mL oral sucrose 24%
IG3: 1 mL oral sucrose 24%		Sucrose and NNS 2 min before. PIPP scale at 30 s and 60 s after heel prick.NNS 2 min
0.1–0.5–1 mL sucrose 24%		High
Thakkar et al., 2016 [51]IndiaIG1: 45 (25)
IG2: 45 (20)
IG3: 45 (18)
CG: 45 (14)		IG1: 38.68
IG2: 38.66
IG3: 38.8
CG: 38.8		IG1: ≥2.200
IG2: ≥2.200
IG3: ≥2.200
CG: ≥2.200		NAPIPP scale
IG1: 7
IG2: 9
IG3: 3
CG: 13		IG1: Oral sucrose 30%
IG2: NNS
IG3: Oral sucrose 30% + NNS
CG: Routine care 		Sucrose and NNS 2 min before. PIPP scale after heel prick.NNS 2 min
2 mL sucrose 30% 		Low
Abbreviations: Intervention group (IG); control group (CG); breastfeeding (BF); kangaroo-mother care (KMC); non-nutritive sucking (NNS); neonatal infant pain scale (NIPS); premature infant pain profile (PIPP); not available (NA).
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

García-Valdivieso, I.; Yáñez-Araque, B.; Moncunill-Martínez, E.; Bocos-Reglero, M.J.; Gómez-Cantarino, S. Effect of Non-Pharmacological Methods in the Reduction of Neonatal Pain: Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2023, 20, 3226. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph20043226

AMA Style

García-Valdivieso I, Yáñez-Araque B, Moncunill-Martínez E, Bocos-Reglero MJ, Gómez-Cantarino S. Effect of Non-Pharmacological Methods in the Reduction of Neonatal Pain: Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health. 2023; 20(4):3226. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph20043226

Chicago/Turabian Style

García-Valdivieso, Inmaculada, Benito Yáñez-Araque, Eva Moncunill-Martínez, M. Jesús Bocos-Reglero, and Sagrario Gómez-Cantarino. 2023. "Effect of Non-Pharmacological Methods in the Reduction of Neonatal Pain: Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis" International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health 20, no. 4: 3226. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph20043226

Note that from the first issue of 2016, this journal uses article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop