↓ Skip to main content

Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews

Non-nutritive sucking for increasing physiologic stability and nutrition in preterm infants

Overview of attention for article published in Cochrane database of systematic reviews, October 2016
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 5% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (96th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (90th percentile)

Mentioned by

news
1 news outlet
blogs
1 blog
policy
1 policy source
twitter
54 tweeters
facebook
4 Facebook pages
wikipedia
2 Wikipedia pages
googleplus
1 Google+ user

Citations

dimensions_citation
62 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
374 Mendeley
Title
Non-nutritive sucking for increasing physiologic stability and nutrition in preterm infants
Published in
Cochrane database of systematic reviews, October 2016
DOI 10.1002/14651858.cd001071.pub3
Pubmed ID
Authors

Jann P Foster, Kim Psaila, Tiffany Patterson

Abstract

Non-nutritive sucking (NNS) is used during gavage feeding and in the transition from gavage to breast/bottle feeding in preterm infants to improve the development of sucking behavior and the digestion of enteral feedings. To assess the effects of non-nutritive sucking on physiologic stability and nutrition in preterm infants. We used the standard search strategy of the Cochrane Neonatal Review group to search the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL; 2016, Issue 1), MEDLINE via PubMed (1966 to 25 February 2016), Embase (1980 to 25 February 2016), and CINAHL (1982 to 25 February 2016). We also searched clinical trials databases, conference proceedings, and the reference lists of retrieved articles for randomised controlled trials. Randomised controlled trials and quasi-randomised trials that compared non-nutritive sucking versus no provision of non-nutritive sucking in preterm infants. We excluded cross-over trials. Two review authors assessed trial eligibility and risk of bias and undertook data extraction independently. We analysed the treatment effects in the individual trials and reported mean differences (MD) for continuous data, with 95% confidence intervals (CIs). We used a fixed-effect model in meta-analyses. We did not perform subgroup analyses because of the small number of studies related to the relevant outcomes. We used the GRADE approach to assess the quality of evidence. We identified 12 eligible trials enrolling a total of 746 preterm infants. Meta-analysis, though limited by data quality, demonstrated a significant effect of NNS on transition from gavage to full oral feeding (MD -5.51 days, 95% CI -8.20 to -2.82; N = 87), transition from start of oral feeding to full oral feeding (MD -2.15 days, 95% CI -3.12 to -1.17; N = 100), and the length of hospital stay (MD -4.59 days, 95% CI -8.07 to -1.11; N = 501). Meta-analysis revealed no significant effect of NNS on weight gain. One study found that the NNS group had a significantly shorter intestinal transit time during gavage feeding compared to the control group (MD -10.50 h, 95% CI -13.74 to -7.26; N = 30). Other individual studies demonstrated no clear positive effect of NNS on age of infant at full oral feeds, days from birth to full breastfeeding, rates and proportion of infants fully breastfeeding at discharge, episodes of bradycardia, or episodes of oxygen desaturation. None of the studies reported any negative outcomes. These trials were generally small and contained various methodological weaknesses including lack of blinding of intervention and outcome assessors and variability on outcome measures. The quality of the evidence on outcomes assessed according to GRADE was low to very low. Meta-analysis demonstrated a significant effect of NNS on the transition from gavage to full oral feeding, transition from start of oral feeding to full oral feeding, and length of hospital stay. None of the trials reported any adverse effects. Well-designed, adequately powered studies using reliable methods of randomisation, concealment of treatment allocation and blinding of the intervention and outcome assessors are needed. In order to facilitate meta-analysis of these data, future research should involve outcome measures consistent with those used in previous studies.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 54 tweeters who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 374 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United Kingdom 2 <1%
Ethiopia 1 <1%
South Africa 1 <1%
Spain 1 <1%
United States 1 <1%
Unknown 368 98%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 60 16%
Student > Bachelor 57 15%
Researcher 31 8%
Student > Ph. D. Student 31 8%
Other 26 7%
Other 82 22%
Unknown 87 23%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 106 28%
Nursing and Health Professions 95 25%
Psychology 13 3%
Social Sciences 12 3%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 9 2%
Other 41 11%
Unknown 98 26%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 70. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 08 December 2021.
All research outputs
#417,370
of 19,602,522 outputs
Outputs from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#867
of 11,955 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#10,505
of 288,699 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#19
of 181 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 19,602,522 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 97th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 11,955 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 27.6. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 92% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 288,699 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 96% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 181 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 90% of its contemporaries.