Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 306

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 1 of the 1 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

The efficacy of non‐pharmacological interventions in the management of procedural pain in preterm and term neonates: A systematic literature review

Cignacco, Eva, Hamers, Jan P.H., Stoffel, Lilian, van Lingen, Richard A., Gessler, Peter, McDougall, Jane, Nelle, Mathias·2007·European Journal of Pain

Abstract

Background: Neonates in a neonatal intensive care unit are exposed to a high number of painful procedures. Since repeated and sustained pain can have consequences for the neurological and behaviour‐oriented development of the newborn, the greatest attention needs to be paid to systematic pain management in neonatology. Non‐pharmacological treatment methods are being increasingly discussed with regard to pain prevention and relief either alone or in combination with pharmacological treatment. Aims: To identify effective non‐pharmacological interventions with regard to procedural pain in neonates. Methods: A literature search was conducted via the MedLine, CINAHL, Cochrane Library databases and complemented by a handsearch. The literature search covered the period from 1984 to 2004. Data were extracted according to pre‐defined criteria by two independent reviewers and methodological quality was assessed. Results: 13 randomised controlled studies and two meta‐analyses were taken into consideration with regard to the question of current nursing practice of non‐pharmacological pain management methods. The selected interventions were “non‐nutritive sucking”, “music”, “swaddling”, “positioning”, “olfactory and multisensorial stimulation”, “kangaroo care” and “maternal touch”. There is evidence that the methods of “non‐nutritive sucking”, “swaddling” and “facilitated tucking” do have a pain‐alleviating effect on neonates. Conclusions: Some of the non‐pharmacological interventions have an evident favourable effect on pulse rate, respiration and oxygen saturation, on the reduction of motor activity, and on the excitation states after invasive measures. However, unambiguous evidence of this still remains to be presented. Further research should emphasise the use of validated pain assessment instruments for the evaluation of the pain‐alleviating effect of non‐pharmacological interventions.

Overview

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1016/j.ejpain.2006.02.010

Cites

1 of 1 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Verification

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Citations

Cites

Show all 1 references

Cited by

See all 306

Metadata

Authors
Cignacco, E., Hamers, J. P. H., Stoffel, L., van Lingen, R. A., Gessler, P., McDougall, J., & Nelle, M.
Venue
European Journal of Pain
Publisher
Wiley
Published
2007-02
Volume
11
Issue
2
Pages
139-152
ISSN
  • 1090-3801 (ISSN-L)
  • 1532-2149
OpenAlex
W2127520111
Cited by
306
References
1
FWCI
12.99
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review

How to cite

Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.

This page
CoChat. (2026). Citation check: The efficacy of non‐pharmacological interventions in the management of procedural pain in preterm and term neonates: A systematic literature review. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1016/j.ejpain.2006.02.010
The paper
Cignacco, E., Hamers, J. P. H., Stoffel, L., van Lingen, R. A., Gessler, P., McDougall, J., & Nelle, M. (2007). The efficacy of non‐pharmacological interventions in the management of procedural pain in preterm and term neonates: A systematic literature review. European Journal of Pain. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejpain.2006.02.010

Data sources

Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.

Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).

Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.