• Gwenaëlle De Clifford-Faugere, Andréane Lavallée, Christelle Khadra, Ariane Ballard, Sébastien Colson, and Marilyn Aita.
• Faculty of Nursing, Université de Montréal, C.P. 6128 Succ. Centre-ville, Montreal, Quebec H3C 3J7, Canada; CHU Sainte-Justine Research Centre, Montreal, Quebec, Canada; Faculté des Sciences Médicales et Paramédicales, Aix Marseille Université, EA3279-CEReSS, Marseille, France. Electronic address: gwenaelle.de.clifford@umontreal.ca.
• Int J Nurs Stud. 2020 Oct 1; 110: 103697.

BackgroundPreterm and full-term neonates undergo many painful procedures during their hospitalization in the neonatal intensive care unit. Unrelieved and repeated pain can have important repercussions on their motor and intellectual development. Still, pain management interventions are limited for neonates.ObjectiveThis systematic review aimed to evaluate the effectiveness of olfactive stimulation interventions on the pain response of preterm and full-term infants during painful procedures.DesignSystematic review and meta-analysis.Data SourcesAn electronic search was conducted from inception to August 2019 in PubMed, MEDLINE, Embase, CINAHL, PsycINFO, Web of Sciences, CENTRAL, Scopus and ProQuest.Review MethodsStudy selection, data extraction, assessment of risk of bias and quality of evidence were performed by two independent reviewers.Results3311 studies were screened. Of the 14 studies included studies (n = 1028 infants), results from 10 were combined in meta-analysis. The latter demonstrated that olfactive stimulation interventions using a familiar odor were effective compared to standard care on pain reactivity (SMD -0.69; 95% CI -0.93 to -0.44; I2 = 20%, p < 0.00001), pain regulation (SMD -0.40; 95% CI -0.66 to -0.14; I2 = 13%, p = 0.002), crying duration during (SMD -0.42; 95% CI -0.73 to -0.10; I2 = 47%, p = 0.009) and after the procedure (SMD -0.37; 95% CI -0.68 to -0.07; I2 = 0%, p = 0.01), heart rate after the procedure (MD -3.87; 95% CI -7.36 to -0.38; I2 = 99%, p = 0.03), oxygen saturation during (MD -0.47; 95% CI -0.86 to -0.08; I2 = 91%, p = 0.02) and after the procedure (MD -0.56; 95% CI -0.99 to -0.13; I2 = 99%, p = 0.01). No adverse event was reported.ConclusionThese findings are based on low to very low quality of evidence limiting our confidence in effect estimates. More rigorous trials with a larger sample size are needed to enhance the comprehension of the mechanisms underlying olfactive stimulation interventions and the interventions' efficacy.Copyright © 2020. Published by Elsevier Ltd.

14 keywords...

hide…