↓ Skip to main content

Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews

Systemic opioid regimens for postoperative pain in neonates

Overview of attention for article published in Cochrane database of systematic reviews, January 2023
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (84th percentile)
  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source

Mentioned by

twitter
15 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
4 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
23 Mendeley
Title
Systemic opioid regimens for postoperative pain in neonates
Published in
Cochrane database of systematic reviews, January 2023
DOI 10.1002/14651858.cd015016.pub2
Pubmed ID
Authors

Mari Kinoshita, Israel Junior Borges do Nascimento, Lea Styrmisdóttir, Matteo Bruschettini

Abstract

Postoperative pain clinical management in neonates has always been a challenging medical issue. Worldwide, several systemic opioid regimens are available for pediatricians, neonatologists, and general practitioners to control pain in neonates undergoing surgical procedures. However, the most effective and safe regimen is still unknown in the current body of literature. To determine the effects of different regimens of systemic opioid analgesics in neonates submitted to surgery on all-cause mortality, pain, and significant neurodevelopmental disability. Potentially assessed regimens might include: different doses of the same opioid, different routes of administration of the same opioid, continuous infusion versus bolus administration, or 'as needed' administration versus 'as scheduled' administration. Searches were conducted in June 2022 using the following databases: Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials [CENTRAL], PubMed, and CINAHL. Trial registration records were identified via CENTRAL and an independent search of the ISRCTN registry. We included randomized controlled trials (RCTs), quasi-randomized, cluster-randomized, and cross-over controlled trials evaluating systemic opioid regimens' effects on postoperative pain in neonates (pre-term or full-term). We considered suitable for inclusion: I) studies evaluating different doses of the same opioid; 2) studies evaluating different routes of administration of the same opioid; 3) studies evaluating the effectiveness of continuous infusion versus bolus infusion; and 4) studies establishing an assessment of an 'as needed' administration versus 'as scheduled' administration. According to Cochrane methods, two investigators independently screened retrieved records, extracted data, and appraised the risk of bias. We stratified meta-analysis by the type of intervention: studies evaluating the use of opioids for postoperative pain in neonates through continuous infusion versus bolus infusion and studies assessing the 'as needed' administration versus 'as scheduled' administration. We used the fixed-effect model with risk ratio (RR) for dichotomous data and mean difference (MD), standardized mean difference (SMD), median, and interquartile range (IQR) for continuous data. Finally, we used the GRADEpro approach for primary outcomes to evaluate the quality of the evidence across included studies. In this review, we included seven randomized controlled clinical trials (504 infants) from 1996 to 2020. We identified no studies comparing different doses of the same opioid, or different routes. The administration of continuous opioid infusion versus bolus administration of opioids was evaluated in six studies, while one study compared 'as needed' versus 'as scheduled' administration of morphine given by parents or nurses. Overall, the effectiveness of continuous infusion of opioids over bolus infusion as measured by the visual analog scale (MD 0.00, 95% confidence interval (CI) -0.23 to 0.23; 133 participants, 2 studies; I² = 0); or using the COMFORT scale (MD -0.07, 95% CI -0.89 to 0.75; 133 participants, 2 studies; I² = 0), remains unclear due to study designs' limitations, such as the unclear risk of attrition, reporting bias, and imprecision among reported results (very low certainty of the evidence).  None of the included studies reported data on other clinically important outcomes such as all-cause mortality rate during hospitalization, major neurodevelopmental disability, the incidence of severe retinopathy of prematurity or intraventricular hemorrhage, and cognitive- and educational-related outcomes.  AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Limited evidence is available on continuous infusion compared to intermittent boluses of systemic opioids. We are uncertain whether continuous opioid infusion reduces pain compared with intermittent opioid boluses; none of the studies reported the other primary outcomes of this review, i.e. all-cause mortality during initial hospitalization, significant neurodevelopmental disability, or cognitive and educational outcomes among children older than five years old. Only one small study reported on morphine infusion with parent- or nurse-controlled analgesia.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 15 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
As of 1 July 2024, you may notice a temporary increase in the numbers of X profiles with Unknown location. Click here to learn more.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 23 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 23 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 2 9%
Student > Postgraduate 2 9%
Student > Ph. D. Student 1 4%
Other 1 4%
Professor > Associate Professor 1 4%
Other 1 4%
Unknown 15 65%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 6 26%
Social Sciences 1 4%
Nursing and Health Professions 1 4%
Unknown 15 65%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 10. 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 29 January 2023.
All research outputs
#3,767,277
of 26,180,771 outputs
Outputs from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#6,341
of 13,191 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#76,343
of 484,320 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#67
of 115 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 26,180,771 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 85th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 13,191 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 35.5. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 51% 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 484,320 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done well, scoring higher than 84% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 115 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 41st percentile – i.e., 41% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.