Skip to main content
. 2016 Sep 16;2016(9):CD009999. doi: 10.1002/14651858.CD009999.pub2

Summary of findings for the main comparison. Simethicone versus placebo for infantile colic.

Simethicone versus placebo for infantile colic
Patient or population: infants with infantile colic
 Settings: university primary care centre (Sweden) and general paediatric practices (USA)
 Intervention: simethicone versus placebo
Outcomes Illustrative comparative risks* (95% CI) Relative effect
 (95% CI) No. of participants
 (studies) Quality of the evidence
 (GRADE) Comments
Assumed risk Corresponding risk
Control Simethicone vs placebo
Reduction in crying duration 
 Difference between final values (hours per day of crying)
 Follow‐up: mean 7 days Mean crying duration in control groups was 4.37 hours/d Mean crying duration in intervention groups was 0.13 lower (1.4 lower to 1.14 higher) MD ‐0.13 (‐1.40 to 1.14) 27
 (1 study) ⊕⊝⊝⊝
 Very lowa,b
Responders 
 Number of infants who improved after treatment
 Follow‐up: mean 7 days Study population RR 0.95 
 (0.73 to 1.23) 110
 (2 studies) ⊕⊕⊝⊝
 Lowa,c
591 per 1000 561 per 1000 
 (431 to 727)
Moderate
604 per 1000 574 per 1000 
 (441 to 743)
*The basis for the assumed risk (e.g. median control group risk across studies) is provided in footnotes. The corresponding risk (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; GRADE: Grades of Recommendation, Assessment, Development and Evaluation; MD: mean difference; RR: risk ratio.
GRADE Working Group grades of evidence.
 High quality: Further research is very unlikely to change our confidence in the estimate of effect.
 Moderate quality: Further research is likely to have an important impact on our confidence in the estimate of effect and may change the estimate.
 Low quality: Further research is very likely to have an important impact on our confidence in the estimate of effect and is likely to change the estimate.
 Very low quality: We are very uncertain about the estimate.

aHigh risk of selection, attrition and reporting bias.
 bOnly one study with 27 infants.
 cOnly two studies with 110 infants.