Skip to main content
. 2010 Feb 5;2010:0309.

Table 1.

GRADE evaluation of interventions for colic in infants

Important outcomes Duration of crying caused by colic, adverse effects
Number of studies (participants) Outcome Comparison Type of evidence Quality Consistency Directness Effect size GRADE Comment
What are the effects of treatments for colic in infants?
1 (66) Duration of crying Advice to carry infant v general advice 4 –2 0 0 0 Low Quality points deducted for sparse data and incomplete reporting of results
1 (42) Duration of crying Advice to reduce stimulation v no advice 4 –2 0 0 0 Low Quality points deducted for sparse data and uncertain validity of outcome measure
1 (122) Duration of crying Casein hydrolysate milk or hypoallergenic diet for breastfeeding mother v cows' milk or control diet for mother 4 –2 0 –1 0 Very low Quality points deducted for sparse data and incomplete reporting of data. Directness point deducted for inclusion of different interventions
1 (38) Duration of crying Counselling plus reassurance v crib vibrator device plus reassurance v reassurance alone 4 –2 0 –1 0 Very low Quality point deducted for sparse data and incomplete reporting of results. Directness point deducted for range of interventions advised as part of counselling
1 (20) Duration of crying Counselling v elimination of cows' milk or soya milk with casein hydrolysate 4 –1 0 –1 0 Low Quality point deducted for sparse data. Directness point deducted for range of interventions advised as part of counselling
1 (58) Duration of crying Infant massage v crib vibrator device 4 –1 0 –1 0 Low Quality point deducted for sparse data. Directness point deducted for inclusion of babies without colic
1 (53) Duration of crying Low-lactose milk v standard milk 4 –2 0 –1 0 Very low Quality points deducted for sparse data and methodological flaws. Directness point deducted for uncertain lactose intolerance in babies
3 (136) Duration of crying Simethicone v placebo 4 –2 –1 0 0 Very low Quality points deducted for sparse data and methodological flaws. Consistency point deducted for conflicting results
1 (41) Duration of crying Simethicone v spinal manipulation 4 –2 0 0 0 Low Quality points deducted for sparse data and lack of blinding
1 (86) Duration of crying Spinal palpation v holding 4 –1 0 0 0 Moderate Quality point deducted for sparse data
1 (43) Duration of crying Whey hydrolysate milk v cows' milk formula 4 –2 0 0 0 Low Quality points deducted for sparse data and flawed blinding

Type of evidence: 4 = RCT; 2 = Observational; 1 = Non-analytical/expert opinion. Consistency: similarity of results across studies Directness: generalisability of population or outcomes Effect size: based on relative risk or odds ratio