Summary of findings 2. Summary of findings table 2. Oral stimulation intervention versus other non‐oral intervention.
| Comparison group 2 | ||||||
| Patient or population: preterm infants Setting: NICU Intervention: oral stimulation Comparison: non‐oral intervention | ||||||
| Outcomes | Anticipated absolute effects* (95% CI) | Relative effect (95% CI) | Number of participants (studies) | Quality of the evidence (GRADE) | Comments | |
| Risk with non‐oral intervention | Risk with oral stimulation | |||||
| Time (days) to achieve exclusive oral feeding | Mean time (days) to achieve exclusive oral feeding: 0 | Mean time (days) to achieve exclusive oral feeding in the intervention group: 9.01, undefined lower (10.3 lower to 7.71 lower) | ‐ | 256 (5 RCTs) | ⊕⊕⊝⊝ Low1,4,5,6,7,8 | Heterogeneity (I2 = 25%) between studies was low, and issues with selection, performance and attrition bias were noted. |
| Total hospital stay (days) | Mean total hospital stay (days): 0 | Mean total hospital stay (days) in the intervention group: 2.94, undefined lower (4.36 lower to 1.51 lower) | ‐ | 352 (6 RCTs) | ⊕⊕⊝⊝ Low1,2,5,6 | |
| Duration (days) of parenteral nutrition | Mean duration (days) of parenteral nutrition: 0 | Mean duration (days) of parenteral nutrition in the intervention group: 8.7, undefined lower (15.46 lower to 1.94 lower) | ‐ | 98 (1 RCT) | ⊕⊕⊕⊝ Low | Only 1 study included Wide confidence interval Not fully blinded |
| Exclusive direct breast feeding at discharge | 500 per 1000 | 479 per 1000 (346 to 617) | RR 0.96 (0.72 to 1.28) | 196 (1 RCT) | ⊕⊕⊕⊝ Moderate | Only 1 study included |
| *The risk in the intervention group (and its 95% confidence interval) is based on the assumed risk in the comparison group and the relative effect of the intervention (and its 95% CI). CI: confidence interval; OR: odds ratio; RR: risk ratio. | ||||||
| GRADE Working Group grades of evidence High quality: We are very confident that the true effect lies close to that of the estimate of effect. Moderate quality: We are moderately confident in the effect estimate: The true effect is likely to be close to the estimate of effect but may be substantially different. Low quality: Our confidence in the effect estimate is limited: The true effect may be substantially different from the estimate of effect. Very low quality: We have very little confidence in the effect estimate: The true effect is likely to be substantially different from the estimate of effect. | ||||||
1High risk of reporting bias.
2Moderate heterogeneity (30% to 60%).
3Substantial heterogeneity (50% to 90%).
4Considerable heterogeneity (75% to 100%).
5High risk of selection bias.
6High risk of performance bias.
7High risk of attrition bias.
8Low heterogeneity (0 to 40%).