TABLE 2.
Studies included for further contextual information
| First author (reference) | Year | Age | Intervention | Pain reactivity findings | Pain regulation findings | Reason for exclusion from quantitative analyses |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Cong (73) | 2009 | Preterm | Facilitated tucking vs non-nutritive sucking | Supports efficacy | – | No behavioural pain measure reported |
| Johnston (74) | 2008 | Preterm | Kangaroo care | Does not support efficacy | Supports efficacy | Control group was active |
| Johnston (75) | 2009 | Preterm | Kangaroo care | No difference between kangaroo care and enhanced kangaroo care | No difference between kangaroo care and enhanced kangaroo care | Control group was active |
| Ludington-Hoe (76) | 2005 | Preterm | Kangaroo care | Supports efficacy | Supports efficacy | Control group was active |
| Huang (77) | 2004 | Preterm | Kangaroo care | No difference between swaddling and containment | – | Control group was active |
| Cignacco (78) | 2008 | Preterm | Kangaroo care | No difference between multisensorial stimulation and facilitated tucking | No difference between multisensorial stimulation and facilitated tucking | Control group was active |
| Diego (79) | 2009 | Preterm | Kangaroo care | – | Supports efficacy | Control group was active |
| Goubet (80) | 2003 | Preterm | Smell (familiar vs unfamiliar) | No difference between familiar and unfamiliar odour | Familiar odour more efficacious than unfamiliar odour | Control group was active |
| Grunau (81) | 2004 | Preterm | Multisensorial stimulation vs facilitated tucking | No difference between prone and supine positioning | – | No control group |
| Vivancos (82) | 2010 | Neonate | Non-nutritive sucking | Does not support efficacy | Does not support efficacy | Not an RCT |
| Okan (83) | 2010 | Neonate | Non-nutritive sucking | Does not support efficacy | Supports efficacy | No means or SDs reported; could not contact author |
| Aguirre (84) | 2008 | Neonate | Non-nutritive sucking vs non-nutritive sucking & swaddling | Non-nutritive sucking more efficacious than facilitated tucking | – | Control group was active |
| Bueno (85) | 2010 | Neonate | Pacifier vs swaddling | No difference between non-nutritive sucking and non-nutritive sucking with swaddling | No difference between non-nutritive sucking and non-nutritive sucking with swaddling | Control group was active |
| Campos (86) | 1989 | Neonate | Positioning (prone vs supine) | No difference between pacifier and swaddling | Pacifier more efficacious than swaddling | Control group was active |
| Goubet (87) | 2007 | Neonate | Rocking and/or holding | – | Familiar odour more efficacious than unfamiliar odour | Control group was active |
| Rattaz (88) | 2005 | Neonate | Smell (familiar vs unfamiliar) | No difference between familiar and unfamiliar odour | Familiar odour more efficacious than unfamiliar odour | No control group |
| Weissman (89) | 2009 | Neonate | Smell (familiar vs unfamiliar) | Supports efficacy | – | Not an RCT |
| Smell (familiar vs unfamiliar) | Supports efficacy | – | ||||
| Felt (90) | 2000 | Older Infant | Structured parental intervention | – | Supports Efficacy | Not an RCT |
| Morelius (91) | 2009 | Older Infant | Swaddling or tucking | – | Does Not Support Efficacy | Not an RCT |
| Swallowing water | – | Does Not Support Efficacy | ||||
| Ipp (92) | 2009 | Older Infant | Vaccination order | Supports injecting DPTAP-Hib vaccine before PCV | – | No control group |
*
Dash indicates no research done for that treatment, age and pain response combination. DPTAP-Hib Diphtheria and tetanus toxoids and acellular pertussis and Haemophilus influenza type b vaccine; PCV Pneumococcal conjugated vaccine; RCT Randomized controlled trial