Oral stimulation for promoting oral feeding in preterm infants

• Published in: Cochrane database of systematic reviews 2016-09, Vol.9 (9), p.CD009720
• Main Authors: Greene, Zelda, O'Donnell, Colm Pf, Walshe, Margaret
• Format: Article
• Language: English
• Subjects: Neonatal care; Nutrition and Metabolism in the High‐Risk Neonate
• ISSN: 1469-493X; 1469-493X
• DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD009720.pub2

Preterm infants (< 37 weeks' postmenstrual age) are often delayed in attaining oral feeding. Normal oral feeding is suggested as an important outcome for the timing of discharge from the hospital and can be an early indicator of neuromotor integrity and developmental outcomes. A range of oral stimulation interventions may help infants to develop sucking and oromotor co-ordination, promoting earlier oral feeding and earlier hospital discharge. To determine the effectiveness of oral stimulation interventions for attainment of oral feeding in preterm infants born before 37 weeks' postmenstrual age (PMA).To conduct subgroup analyses for the following prespecified subgroups.• Extremely preterm infants born at < 28 weeks' PMA.• Very preterm infants born from 28 to < 32 weeks' PMA.• Infants breast-fed exclusively.• Infants bottle-fed exclusively.• Infants who were both breast-fed and bottle-fed. We used the standard search strategy of the Cochrane Neonatal Review Group to search the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE via PubMed (1966 to 25 February 2016), Embase (1980 to 25 February 2016) and the Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature (CINAHL; 1982 to 25 February 2016). We searched clinical trials databases, conference proceedings and the reference lists of retrieved articles. Randomised and quasi-randomised controlled trials comparing a defined oral stimulation intervention with no intervention, standard care, sham treatment or non-oral intervention in preterm infants and reporting at least one of the specified outcomes. One review author searched the databases and identified studies for screening. Two review authors screened the abstracts of these studies and full-text copies when needed to identify trials for inclusion in the review. All review authors independently extracted the data and analysed each study for risk of bias across the five domains of bias. All review authors discussed and analysed the data and used the GRADE system to rate the quality of the evidence. Review authors divided studies into two groups for comparison: intervention versus standard care and intervention versus other non-oral or sham intervention. We performed meta-analysis using a fixed-effect model. This review included 19 randomised trials with a total of 823 participants. Almost all included trials had several methodological weaknesses. Meta-analysis showed that oral stimulation reduced the time to transition to oral feeding compar