Systematic review and meta-analysis of olfactive stimulation interventions to manage procedural pain in preterm and full-term neonates


Article
Version acceptée / Accepted Manuscript

Date de publication

Identifiant ORCID de l’auteur

Contributrices et contributeurs

Direction de recherche

Publié dans

International journal of nursing studies

Date de la Conférence

Lieu de la Conférence

Éditeur

Elsevier

Cycle d'études

Programme

Mots-clés

  • Pain
  • Odor
  • Non-pharmacological intervention
  • Neonatology
  • Systematic review

Organisme subventionnaire

Résumé

Background Preterm and full-term neonates undergo many painful procedures during their hospitalization in the neonatal intensive care unit. Unrelieved and repeated pain can have important repercussions on their motor and intellectual development. Still, pain management interventions are limited for neonates.

Objective This systematic review aimed to evaluate the effectiveness of olfactive stimulation interventions on the pain response of preterm and full-term infants during painful procedures.

Design Systematic review and meta-analysis.

Data sources An electronic search was conducted from inception to August 2019 in PubMed, MEDLINE, Embase, CINAHL, PsycINFO, Web of Sciences, CENTRAL, Scopus and ProQuest.

Review methods Study selection, data extraction, assessment of risk of bias and quality of evidence were performed by two independent reviewers.

Results 3311 studies were screened. Of the 14 studies included studies (n = 1028 infants), results from 10 were combined in meta-analysis. The latter demonstrated that olfactive stimulation interventions using a familiar odor were effective compared to standard care on pain reactivity (SMD -0.69; 95% CI -0.93 to -0.44; I2 = 20%, p < 0.00001), pain regulation (SMD -0.40; 95% CI -0.66 to -0.14; I2 = 13%, p = 0.002), crying duration during (SMD -0.42; 95% CI -0.73 to -0.10; I2 = 47%, p = 0.009) and after the procedure (SMD -0.37; 95% CI -0.68 to -0.07; I2 = 0%, p = 0.01), heart rate after the procedure (MD -3.87; 95% CI -7.36 to -0.38; I2 = 99%, p = 0.03), oxygen saturation during (MD -0.47; 95% CI -0.86 to -0.08; I2 = 91%, p = 0.02) and after the procedure (MD -0.56; 95% CI -0.99 to -0.13; I2 = 99%, p = 0.01). No adverse event was reported.

Conclusion These findings are based on low to very low quality of evidence limiting our confidence in effect estimates. More rigorous trials with a larger sample size are needed to enhance the comprehension of the mechanisms underlying olfactive stimulation interventions and the interventions’ efficacy.

Table des matières

Notes

Notes

Autre version linguistique

Ensemble de données lié

Licence

ATTRIBUTION - PAS D’UTILISATION COMMERCIALE - PAS DE MODIFICATION 4.0 INTERNATIONAL CC BY-NC-ND 4.0 Deed

Approbation

Évaluation

Complété par

Référencé par

Ce document diffusé sur Papyrus est la propriété exclusive des titulaires des droits d'auteur et est protégé par la Loi sur le droit d'auteur (L.R.C. (1985), ch. C-42). Sauf si le document est diffusé sous une licence Creative Commons, il ne peut être utilisé que dans le cadre d'une utilisation équitable et non commerciale comme le prévoit la Loi (i.e. à des fins d'étude privée ou de recherche, de critique ou de compte-rendu). Pour toute autre utilisation, une autorisation écrite des titulaires des droits d'auteur sera nécessaire.