Your browser doesn't support javascript.
loading
Mostrar: 20 | 50 | 100
Resultados 1 - 4 de 4
Filtrar
Más filtros













Base de datos
Intervalo de año de publicación
2.
Cochrane Database Syst Rev ; 7: CD001069, 2016 Jul 16.
Artículo en Inglés | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-27420164

RESUMEN

BACKGROUND: Administration of oral sucrose with and without non-nutritive sucking is the most frequently studied non-pharmacological intervention for procedural pain relief in neonates. OBJECTIVES: To determine the efficacy, effect of dose, method of administration and safety of sucrose for relieving procedural pain in neonates as assessed by validated composite pain scores, physiological pain indicators (heart rate, respiratory rate, saturation of peripheral oxygen in the blood, transcutaneous oxygen and carbon dioxide (gas exchange measured across the skin - TcpO2, TcpCO2), near infrared spectroscopy (NIRS), electroencephalogram (EEG), or behavioural pain indicators (cry duration, proportion of time crying, proportion of time facial actions (e.g. grimace) are present), or a combination of these and long-term neurodevelopmental outcomes. SEARCH METHODS: We used the standard methods of the Cochrane Neonatal. We performed electronic and manual literature searches in February 2016 for published randomised controlled trials (RCTs) in the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL; The Cochrane Library, Issue 1, 2016), MEDLINE (1950 to 2016), EMBASE (1980 to 2016), and CINAHL (1982 to 2016). We did not impose language restrictions. SELECTION CRITERIA: RCTs in which term or preterm neonates (postnatal age maximum of 28 days after reaching 40 weeks' postmenstrual age), or both, received sucrose for procedural pain. Control interventions included no treatment, water, glucose, breast milk, breastfeeding, local anaesthetic, pacifier, positioning/containing or acupuncture. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Our main outcome measures were composite pain scores (including a combination of behavioural, physiological and contextual indicators). Secondary outcomes included separate physiological and behavioural pain indicators. We reported a mean difference (MD) or weighted MD (WMD) with 95% confidence intervals (CI) using the fixed-effect model for continuous outcome measures. For categorical data we used risk ratio (RR) and risk difference. We assessed heterogeneity by the I(2) test. We assessed the risk of bias of included trials using the Cochrane 'Risk of bias' tool, and assessed the quality of the evidence using the GRADE system. MAIN RESULTS: Seventy-four studies enrolling 7049 infants were included. Results from only a few studies could be combined in meta-analyses and for most analyses the GRADE assessments indicated low- or moderate-quality evidence. There was high-quality evidence for the beneficial effect of sucrose (24%) with non-nutritive sucking (pacifier dipped in sucrose) or 0.5 mL of sucrose orally in preterm and term infants: Premature Infant Pain Profile (PIPP) 30 s after heel lance WMD -1.70 (95% CI -2.13 to -1.26; I(2) = 0% (no heterogeneity); 3 studies, n = 278); PIPP 60 s after heel lance WMD -2.14 (95% CI -3.34 to -0.94; I(2) = 0% (no heterogeneity; 2 studies, n = 164). There was high-quality evidence for the use of 2 mL 24% sucrose prior to venipuncture: PIPP during venipuncture WMD -2.79 (95% CI -3.76 to -1.83; I(2) = 0% (no heterogeneity; 2 groups in 1 study, n = 213); and intramuscular injections: PIPP during intramuscular injection WMD -1.05 (95% CI -1.98 to -0.12; I(2) = 0% (2 groups in 1 study, n = 232). Evidence from studies that could not be included in RevMan-analyses supported these findings. Reported adverse effects were minor and similar in the sucrose and control groups. Sucrose is not effective in reducing pain from circumcision. The effectiveness of sucrose for reducing pain/stress from other interventions such as arterial puncture, subcutaneous injection, insertion of nasogastric or orogastric tubes, bladder catherization, eye examinations and echocardiography examinations are inconclusive. Most trials indicated some benefit of sucrose use but that the evidence for other painful procedures is of lower quality as it is based on few studies of small sample sizes. The effects of sucrose on long-term neurodevelopmental outcomes are unknown. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Sucrose is effective for reducing procedural pain from single events such as heel lance, venipuncture and intramuscular injection in both preterm and term infants. No serious side effects or harms have been documented with this intervention. We could not identify an optimal dose due to inconsistency in effective sucrose dosage among studies. Further investigation of repeated administration of sucrose in neonates is needed. There is some moderate-quality evidence that sucrose in combination with other non-pharmacological interventions such as non-nutritive sucking is more effective than sucrose alone, but more research of this and sucrose in combination with pharmacological interventions is needed. Sucrose use in extremely preterm, unstable, ventilated (or a combination of these) neonates needs to be addressed. Additional research is needed to determine the minimally effective dose of sucrose during a single painful procedure and the effect of repeated sucrose administration on immediate (pain intensity) and long-term (neurodevelopmental) outcomes.


Asunto(s)
Analgésicos/administración & dosificación , Dolor/prevención & control , Sacarosa/administración & dosificación , Administración Oral , Humanos , Recién Nacido , Recien Nacido Prematuro , Dolor/fisiopatología , Dimensión del Dolor , Punciones/efectos adversos , Ensayos Clínicos Controlados Aleatorios como Asunto
3.
BMJ Open ; 5(4): e006808, 2015 Apr 13.
Artículo en Inglés | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-25869686

RESUMEN

OBJECTIVES: The aim of this systematic review was to evaluate the effectiveness of toolkits as a knowledge translation (KT) strategy for facilitating the implementation of evidence into clinical care. Toolkits include multiple resources for educating and/or facilitating behaviour change. DESIGN: Systematic review of the literature on toolkits. METHODS: A search was conducted on MEDLINE, EMBASE, PsycINFO and CINAHL. Studies were included if they evaluated the effectiveness of a toolkit to support the integration of evidence into clinical care, and if the KT goal(s) of the study were to inform, share knowledge, build awareness, change practice, change behaviour, and/or clinical outcomes in healthcare settings, inform policy, or to commercialise an innovation. Screening of studies, assessment of methodological quality and data extraction for the included studies were conducted by at least two reviewers. RESULTS: 39 relevant studies were included for full review; 8 were rated as moderate to strong methodologically with clinical outcomes that could be somewhat attributed to the toolkit. Three of the eight studies evaluated the toolkit as a single KT intervention, while five embedded the toolkit into a multistrategy intervention. Six of the eight toolkits were partially or mostly effective in changing clinical outcomes and six studies reported on implementation outcomes. The types of resources embedded within toolkits varied but included predominantly educational materials. CONCLUSIONS: Future toolkits should be informed by high-quality evidence and theory, and should be evaluated using rigorous study designs to explain the factors underlying their effectiveness and successful implementation.


Asunto(s)
Práctica Clínica Basada en la Evidencia/métodos , Gestión del Conocimiento , Investigación Biomédica Traslacional/métodos , Humanos
4.
Pediatrics ; 133(3): 500-15, 2014 Mar.
Artículo en Inglés | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-24488733

RESUMEN

BACKGROUND: Procedural pain assessment and management have been extensively studied through multiple research studies over the past decade. Results of this research have been included in numerous pediatric pain practice guidelines. OBJECTIVE: To systematically review the quality of existing practice guidelines for acute procedural pain in children and provide recommendations for their use. METHODS: A systematic search was conducted on Medline, Embase, CINAHL, PsycINFO, and Scopus from 2000 to July 2013. A gray literature search was also conducted through the Translating Research Into Practice database, Guidelines International Network database, and National Guideline Clearinghouse. Four reviewers rated relevant guidelines using the Appraisal of Guidelines for Research and Evaluation (AGREE) II Instrument. Screening of guidelines, assessment of methodological quality, and data abstraction were conducted by 2 pairs of raters. Disagreements in overall assessments were resolved through consensus. RESULTS: Eighteen guidelines from 4930 retrieved abstracts were included in this study. Based on the AGREE II domains, the guidelines generally scored high in the scope and purpose and clarity of presentation areas. Information on the rigor of guideline development, applicability, and editorial independence were specified infrequently. Four of the 18 guidelines provided tools to help clinicians apply the recommendations in practice settings; 5 were recommended for use in clinical settings, and the remaining 13 were recommended for use with modification. CONCLUSIONS: Despite the increasing availability of clinical practice guidelines for procedural pain in children, the majority are of average quality. More transparency and comprehensive reporting are needed for the guideline development process.


Asunto(s)
Dolor Agudo/terapia , Manejo del Dolor/normas , Pediatría/normas , Guías de Práctica Clínica como Asunto/normas , Dolor Agudo/diagnóstico , Niño , Humanos , Manejo del Dolor/métodos , Pediatría/métodos
SELECCIÓN DE REFERENCIAS
DETALLE DE LA BÚSQUEDA