Scolaris Content Display Scolaris Content Display

Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews Protocol - Intervention

Pharmacological interventions for the prevention of pain during endotracheal suctioning in ventilated neonates

Collapse all Expand all

Abstract

This is a protocol for a Cochrane Review (Intervention). The objectives are as follows:

To assess the beneficial and harmful effects of pharmacological interventions for the prevention of pain during endotracheal suctioning in mechanically ventilated neonates. Pharmacological interventions will be compared to no intervention or standard care, or to non‐pharmacological interventions.

Background

Description of the condition

Neonates, especially when preterm, are more sensitive to nociceptive stimuli than older children; this is because the functional ascending pain pathways capable of transmitting noxious impulses are present by 24 weeks' gestation, whilst the neurotransmitters that modulate the ascending impulse are absent until approximately 48 weeks' gestation (Anand 2000a; Hatfield 2014). Neuronal and synaptic organization may be permanently altered by repetitive painful experiences in preterm neonates. The cerebral cortex is affected by multiple mechanisms of neonatal pain and stress. Pain causes neuronal cells to die, and indirectly causes changes to the set‐point of stress‐sensitive endocrine systems. Pain, when treated inadequately, results in the immature pain system predisposing preterm infants to greater clinical and behavioral sequelae (Anand 2000a). Both in animal experiments and human studies, it has been shown that the immature nervous system is highly responsive to tactile and noxious stimuli. Neurophysiological recordings in newborn infants undergoing clinically required skin‐breaking procedures reveal strong spinal nociceptive reflex activity and distinct nociceptive cortical potentials in response to these procedures (Cornelissen 2013; Fabrizi 2011; Slater 2010). The younger the postnatal age of the infant, the more prolonged this noxious evoked activity is (Fitzgerald 1984; Hatfield 2014).

With advances in perinatal services and neonatal intensive care technology, the survival of extremely premature and compromised infants has increased substantially (Glass 2015). However, despite medical advances, a considerable number of these infants have long‐term sequelae, such as cerebral palsy, neurosensory impairments, learning disabilities and respiratory diseases (Glass 2015; Younge 2017). In neonatal intensive care units (NICUs), preterm infants are repeatedly and persistently exposed to noxious stimuli, which results in profound and long‐lasting changes in nociceptive neural pathways (Slater 2010). Preterm infants are exposed to these noxious stimuli during a critical window, towards the end of human gestation, where the relatively mature fetus undergoes an important period of brain development, peak rates of brain growth, exuberant synaptogenesis and the developmental regulation of specific receptor populations (Anand 2000b; Bhutta 2002; Brummelte 2012).

Nearly two‐thirds of infants born at less than 29 weeks' gestation require mechanical ventilation for some duration during the newborn period (Giaccone 2014). These neonates are endotracheally intubated and require repeated endotracheal suctioning (Cignacco 2009). Endotracheal suctioning is identified as one of the most frequent and most painful procedures in premature infants (Hadian 2013; Ward‐Larson 2004). It causes moderate to severe pain. Endotracheal suctioning still causes mild pain in premature neonates, despite improving nursing performance and performing a standard procedure based on neonatal need (Hadian 2013).

To assess pain in neonates validly and reliably, pain assessment is necessary. Many multidimensional pain assessment tools are available, yet pain remains insufficiently recognized and often under‐treated (Manworren 2016; Walker 2014). Not only is there a need to reduce acute behavioral responses to pain in neonates, but also to protect the developing nervous system from persistent sensitization of pain pathways and avoid potential damaging effects of altered neural activity on central nervous system development (Walker 2014).

Description of the intervention

The most obvious and effective strategy to reduce pain from repeated endotracheal suctioning is to reduce the frequency of suctioning. In addition, many different non‐pharmacological interventions aimed at reducing stress during painful procedures have been described and studied (Attarian 2014; Riddell 2015).

Although the neurodevelopmental outcomes of neonates may be affected by pain, concerns have also been raised about adverse short‐ and long‐term neurodevelopmental outcomes related to the use of pharmacological interventions, such as opioids, in preterm neonates (Anand 2004; Bellù 2008; Bellù 2010).

If minimizing frequent procedures and non‐pharmacological interventions are unsuccessful, analgesic medications could be administered. Management of neonatal pain often includes opioid therapy. Morphine and fentanyl are the most commonly used opioids in the NICU (Attarian 2014). Paracetamol is the most commonly prescribed analgesic for the treatment of acute pain in adults and children and is a widely accepted treatment for moderate pain in neonates (Meek 2012; Ohlsson 2016).

Included interventions

  1. Non‐opioid analgesia: acetaminophen and nonsteroidal anti‐inflammatory drug agents. Because the mechanism of action includes inhibition of prostaglandin formation, these drugs have limited adverse effects in regards to respiratory depression. They are used as adjuncts to opioid analgesia for moderate to severe pain (Bhalla 2014).

    1. Paracetamol: paracetamol is defined by the National Library of Medicine as "a derivative of acetanilide with analgesic, antipyretic and weak anti‐inflammatory properties. It is a common analgesic in all age groups but may cause liver, blood cell and kidney damage" (National Library of Medicine 2013). A single dose of paracetamol provides effective analgesia for about half of patients with acute postoperative pain. The effect lasts for approximately four hours. It is associated with few, mainly mild, adverse events (Ohlsson 2016; Toms 2009). There is insufficient evidence to establish its role in reducing the effects of painful procedures in neonates (Ohlsson 2016; Walker 2014).

    2. Non‐steroidal anti‐inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs): these drugs have the ability to inhibit cyclooxygenase. There are limited studies investigating the analgesic effect of NSAIDs in neonates. Adverse effects, such as alterations in cerebral blood flow, intraventricular hemorrhage, platelet dysfunction and decreased Glomerular Filtration Rate (GFR) are described in this population (Bhalla 2014).

  2. Opioid analgesia: morphine or fentanyl are the most commonly used opioids in the neonatal population (Bhalla 2014). There are still substantial gaps in the knowledge surrounding sedation (e.g. midazolam) and analgesia (e.g. opioids, nonsteroidal anti‐inflammatory drugs, acetaminophen) during mechanical ventilation in neonates; and concerns remain about their safety, efficacy and short‐ and long‐term outcomes in mechanically ventilated neonates (Aranda 2005).

    1. Morphine: alleviates prolonged pain, reduces behavioral and hormonal stress responses and improves ventilator synchrony and sedation. However, despite its routine use in the NICU, morphine given as a loading dose followed by continuous intravenous infusions does not provide adequate analgesia for the acute pain caused by invasive procedures among ventilated neonates (Carbajal 2005). There are also concerns about adverse short‐ and long‐term neurodevelopmental outcomes related to the use of morphine infusions in preterm neonates (AAP 2016). Some side effects have been reported, such as hypotension, constipation, urinary retention, respiratory depression, duration of mechanical ventilation and development of dependence and tolerance (Walker 2014).

    2. Diamorphine: works more quickly than morphine, reduces the amount of histamine released and therefore causes fewer hypotensive effects than morphine (Wood 1998). Diamorphine was found to be effective in reducing stress response (reduction of plasma cortisol and catecholamines) in ventilated newborn infants; adverse events described were reduction of blood pressure, and when diamorphine was dosed high, retention of carbon dioxide along with a decrease in actual partial oxygen pressure (Barker 1995).

    3. Fentanyl: this drug is considered as a selective m‐receptor agonist and is almost one hundred times more potent than morphine. It has a rapid, predictable onset of action with a short duration of action, mostly due to its high lipid solubility. Fentanyl gives greater hemodynamic stability. Although fentanyl may be associated with rapid development of tolerance and chest wall rigidity, it is the preferred analgesic agent for critically ill patients. Fentanyl has been shown to prevent neonates from surgical stress responses and to improve postoperative outcomes (Maitra 2014; Walker 2014).

    4. Remifentanil: a novel opioid. It was found to be at least as effective as morphine‐midazolam for endotracheal intubation (Avino 2014). It gives intense analgesia and anesthesia, with a rapid recovery in various clinical scenarios (Kamata 2016). It is not dependent on hepatic metabolism and is eliminated by non‐specific esterases. The duration of action is not affected by the duration of infusion. It makes rapid awakening possible. Reported adverse events include: chest wall rigidity and decreased thoracic compliance associated with hypoventilation, oxygen desaturation, hypercarbia, decreased tidal volume causing profound hypoxemia, bradycardia and eventual asystole. Other adverse events that may occur are laryngospasm, hyperalgesia and tolerance (Bhalla 2014; Kamata 2016).

  3. Other drugs with analgesic/sedative effects acting on the central nervous system.

    1. Ketamine: an N‐methyl‐D‐aspartate (NMDA) receptor antagonist that has analgesic and amnesic effects. It has the effect of maintaining stable respiratory and cardiovascular function. It has a rapid onset and the effect only lasts for a few minutes (Barois 2013). It might be a good choice for acute pain during short technical procedures. Reported adverse events include: transient respiratory depression, transient laryngospasm, increased secretions and emesis (Bhutta 2007; Hall 2012).

    2. Propofol: a highly lipophilic and a short‐acting analgo‐sedative. A great advantage of this drug is that it maintains spontaneous breathing. Reported side effects in neonates include: reduced propofol clearance with extensive interindividual clearance variability and hypotension resulting in cerebral blood flow alterations (Simons 2013; Smits 2017).

    3. Benzodiazepines: these are sedatives with amnesic effects. They are commonly used for seizure control, and preoperative and procedure‐related sedation in neonates (Gupta 2018). Up until recently they were used as a sedative in mechanically ventilated preterm infants (American Academy of Pediatrics 2006). Due to a lack of data demonstrating effect, and concerns about the increased risk of poor neurologic outcomes, there is insufficient evidence to promote the use of benzodiazepines such as midazolam (Ng 2017).

    4. Dexmedetomidine: a drug with sedative, anxiolytic and analgesic properties. It is currently used as an anesthetic in neonates (Sottas 2017). It provides sedation and analgesia without compromising respiratory function, and compared to narcotics it has less effect on gastrointestinal motility (O'Mara 2018).

How the intervention might work

Pharmacological interventions are commonly used for procedural pain but their usage is not evidence‐based (Lago 2009). Analgesics could reduce the transmission of noxious stimuli, reducing observed behavioral distress and signs of physiological instability (Moultrie 2017).

Why it is important to do this review

Review articles have reported the role of pharmacological interventions during procedural pain in neonates (Carbajal 2005; Cignacco 2007; Ohlsson 2016). These interventions are effective for many different acute procedures. The role of pharmacological interventions during endotracheal suction in ventilated neonates has not yet been appraised. Endotracheal suctioning is often administered by one nurse or a respiratory therapist (Gardner 2009). Although there is an increase of adherence to national or international pain guidelines, infant pain remains undertreated. Reducing painful stimuli and interventions, and identifying effective pain‐reducing pharmacological interventions, is an obligation of researchers and healthcare providers in the NICU. By performing this review, we hope to ascertain which types of pharmacological interventions are effective in pain management during endotracheal suctioning in mechanically ventilated neonates.

Objectives

To assess the beneficial and harmful effects of pharmacological interventions for the prevention of pain during endotracheal suctioning in mechanically ventilated neonates. Pharmacological interventions will be compared to no intervention or standard care, or to non‐pharmacological interventions.

Methods

Criteria for considering studies for this review

Types of studies

We will include randomised controlled trials (RCTs), quasi‐RCTs and cluster‐RCTs.

Types of participants

  1. Term and preterm neonates who are mechanically ventilated via endotracheal tube and require endotracheal suctioning conducted by doctors, nurses, physical therapists or other healthcare professionals during their stay in the neonatal intensive care unit (NICU).

  2. Term and preterm neonates who have a tracheostomy and require suctioning conducted by doctors, nurses, physical therapists or other healthcare professionals during their stay in the NICU.

We will classify term neonates as those whose postmenstrual age (PMA) is from 37 completed weeks to a maximum of 44 weeks.

We will classify preterm neonates using the World Health Organization criteria:

  1. extremely preterm (less than 28 weeks' gestation);

  2. very preterm (28 to 32 weeks' gestation);

  3. moderate to late preterm (32 to 37 weeks' gestation).

Types of interventions

We will include pharmacological interventions applied during the procedure of endotracheal suctioning, with the specific aim of reducing pain or stress caused by the suctioning procedure. Studies about pain management outside the procedure of endotracheal suctioning will not be included. Please see Description of the intervention for more information about the following interventions.

Included interventions:

  1. Non‐opioid analgesia

    1. Paracetamol

    2. Non‐steroidal antiinflammatory drugs (NSAIDs)

  2. Opioid analgesia

    1. Morphine

    2. Diamorphine

    3. Fentanyl

    4. Remifentanil

Possible comparisons

  1. Non‐opioid analgesia versus placebo, no treatment, or non‐pharmacological interventions.

    1. Subgroups: placebo, no treatment, or non‐pharmacological interventions.

    2. Type of non‐opioid: acetaminophen and nonsteroidal anti‐inflammatory drug agents.

    3. Type of non‐pharmacological interventions: skin‐to‐skin care/kangaroo‐care, facilitated tucking/swaddling or cuddling, non‐nutritive sucking of a pacifier or a gloved finger, rocking/holding, touch/massage, familiar odor, video distractions, oral sucrose, oral sucrose and sucking, acupuncture/transcutaneous electrical nerve stimulation and non‐invasive electrical stimulation of acupuncture points (NESAP), multisensorial stimulation (MSS).

  2. Opioid analgesia versus placebo, no treatment, or non‐pharmacological interventions.

    1. Subgroups: placebo, no treatment, or non‐pharmacological interventions.

    2. Type of opoid: morphine, diamorphine, fentanyl, remifentanil.

    3. Type of non‐pharmacological interventions: skin‐to‐skin care/kangaroo‐care, facilitated tucking/swaddling or cuddling, non‐nutritive sucking of a pacifier or a gloved finger, rocking/holding, touch/massage, familiar odor, video distractions, oral sucrose, oral sucrose and sucking, acupuncture/transcutaneous electrical nerve stimulation and non‐invasive electrical stimulation of acupuncture points (NESAP), multisensorial stimulation (MSS).

  3. Other drug with analgesic/sedative effect acting on the central nervous system versus placebo, no treatment, or non‐pharmacological interventions.

    1. Subgroups: placebo, no treatment, or non‐pharmacological interventions.

    2. Type of drug with analgesic/sedative effect acting on the central nervous system: ketamine, propofol, benzodiazepines, dexmedetomidine.

    3. Type of non‐pharmacological interventions: skin‐to‐skin care/kangaroo‐care, facilitated tucking/swaddling or cuddling, non‐nutritive sucking of a pacifier or a gloved finger, rocking/holding, touch/massage, familiar odor, video distractions, oral sucrose, oral sucrose and sucking, acupuncture/transcutaneous electrical nerve stimulation and non‐invasive electrical stimulation of acupuncture points (NESAP), multisensorial stimulation (MSS).

  4. Non‐opioid analgesia versus opioid analgesia.

    1. Type of non‐opioid: acetaminophen and NSAID agents.

    2. Type of opoid: morphine, diamorphine, fentanyl, remifentanil.

  5. Non‐opioid analgesia versus other drug with analgesic/sedative effect acting on the central nervous system.

    1. Type of non‐opioid: acetaminophen and nonsteroidal anti‐inflammatory drug agents.

    2. Type of drug with analgesic/sedative effect acting on the central nervous system: ketamine, propofol, benzodiazepines, dexmedetomidine.

  6. Opioid analgesia versus other drug with analgesic/sedative effect acting on the central nervous system.

    1. Type of opioid: morphine, diamorphine, fentanyl, remifentanil.

    2. Type of drug with analgesic/sedative effect acting on the central nervous system: ketamine, propofol, benzodiazepines, dexmedetomidine.

Types of outcome measures

Primary outcomes

Pain and discomfort measured using at least one of the following methods, from five minutes before, during, until 10 minutes after endotracheal suctioning (Hadian 2013).

  1. Validated composite pain scores (including a combination of behavioral, physiological and contextual indicators). The ones assessed in a Cochrane Review (Stevens 2016) as being valid for neonates undergoing procedural pain include:

    1. Premature Infant Pain Profile (PIPP; Stevens 1996);

    2. PIPP revised (PIPP‐R; Stevens 2014);

    3. Douleur Aiguë du Nouveau‐né Scale (DAN; Carbajal 1997);

    4. Neonatal Infant Pain Scale (NIPS; Lawrence 1993);

    5. Neonatal Facial Coding System (NFCS; Grunau 1987);

    6. Neurobehavioral Assessment of Preterm Infants (NAPI; Snider 2005);

    7. Neonatal Pain Agitation and Sedation Scale (N‐PASS; Hummel 2010);

    8. Bernese Pain Scale for Neonates (BPSN; Cignacco 2004).

  2. Physiological indicator changes from baseline, final value outcomes, or changes between groups in: heart rate (HR), respiratory rate, oxygen (O2) saturation/transcutaneous oxygen tension (tcPO2), and near‐infrared spectroscopy (NIRS). These measures should be reported before, during and in the time to recovery following the endotracheal suctioning.

  3. Behavioral indicators beside the known and validated pain and comfort scales (proportion of time of total procedure that had predefined facial actions reflecting grimace, e.g. brow bulge, eye squeeze, nasolabial furrow; proportion of time that had predefined body movements, e.g. limb thrashing, fisting, finger splaying, limb and torso flexion).

Both changes from baseline values and differences in absolute scores between intervention and control groups will be recorded. Scores within 10 minutes of the painful intervention will be included.

Secondary outcomes

Any secondary outcomes will be assessed during hospitalization. All studies will be screened for reporting of adverse events. Outcomes 1 to 5 below will be classed as short‐term outcomes.

  1. Pulmonary:

    1. gross air leak (pneumothorax, pneumomediastinum, pneumopericardium);

    2. atelectasis confirmed by X‐ray;

    3. pulmonary hypertension confirmed by echocardiography;

    4. ventilator associated pneumonia (VAP), as defined by the study investigators;

    5. duration of mechanical ventilation (days);

    6. duration of need for supplemental oxygen (days);

    7. need for supplemental oxygen at 36 weeks' postmenstrual age;

    8. moderate or severe bronchopulmonary dysplasia (BPD) at 36 weeks' postmenstrual age, as defined by the NICHD workshop (Jobe 2001).

  2. Hemodynamic:

    1. hypotension, as defined by the study investigators, during and immediately after endotracheal suctioning;

    2. hypertension, as defined by the study investigators, during and immediately after endotracheal suctioning.

  3. Neurological:

    1. any grade intraventricular hemorrhage (IVH) (Papile 1987);

    2. severe IVH (Grade III and IV according to the classification of Papile) (Papile 1987);

    3. cystic periventricular leukomalacia: presence of multiple echolucent cysts in the periventricular white matters.

  4. Mortality:

    1. at 28 days' postnatal age;

    2. at 36 weeks' postmenstrual age;

    3. during hospitalization.

  5. Other:

    1. nausea/vomiting during or immediately after endotracheal suctioning;

    2. duration of hospitalization (total length of hospitalization from birth to discharge home or death) (days);

    3. hormonal indicators (salivary cortisol, serum beta‐endorphins) obtained from body fluids (saliva, serum) with description of analyses, e.g. radio‐immune assay techniques.

  6. Long‐term outcomes:

    1. cerebral palsy at 18 to 24 months corrected age;

    2. neurological development at 18 to 24 months corrected age;

    3. neurological development at school age (five to eight years).

  7. Other adverse events.

Search methods for identification of studies

We will use the criteria and standard methods of Cochrane and Cochrane Neonatal (see the Cochrane Neonatal search strategy for specialized register). We will search for errata or retractions from included studies published in full‐text on PubMed (www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed) and report the date this was done within the review.

Electronic searches

We will conduct a comprehensive search including: the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL, current issue) in the Cochrane Library; MEDLINE via PubMed (1996 to current); Embase (1980 to current); and CINAHL (1982 to current) using search terms unique to pain interventions during endotracheal suctioning in ventilated neonates, plus database‐specific limiters for RCTs and neonates (see Appendix 1 for the full search strategies for each database). We will not apply language restrictions. We will search clinical trials registries for ongoing or recently completed trials (clinicaltrials.gov; the World Health Organization’s International Trials Registry and Platform, and the ISRCTN Registry).

Searching other resources

Additionally, the reference lists of all identified articles will be reviewed for relevant articles not identified in the primary search.

Authors will be contacted for additional or missing information. Editorials, commentaries, reviews, lecture abstracts and letters to the editor will only be included if they contain original data.

Data collection and analysis

We will use the standard methods of Cochrane and Cochrane Neonatal.

Selection of studies

Two review authors (SP, KB) will independently assess titles and abstracts retrieved from the search for inclusion in this review, according to pre‐specified selection criteria. We will manage disagreements through discussion. If not resolved, a third author (FC) will be consulted. We will enter and cross‐check data using Review Manager 2014 software.

We will record the selection process in sufficient detail to complete a PRISMA flow diagram (Moher 2009) and 'Characteristics of excluded studies' table.

Data extraction and management

Two review authors (SP, KB) will independently extract data from the full‐text articles using a specifically designed spread sheet including details of the:

  1. authors;

  2. date and place of publication;

  3. study design: methods of randomisation, number of arms in the trial, cross‐over design, single‐center or multi‐center;

  4. inclusion and exclusion criteria;

  5. number of participants in each arm (including dropouts);

  6. setting;

  7. summary of study participant characteristics: gestational age and weight at birth, postmenstrual and postnatal age at time of enrolment, sex;

  8. details of intervention (type of intervention, description of non‐pharmacological actions, duration of intervention) and control;

  9. adverse events;

  10. outcome measurements and assessment time points;

  11. risk of bias;

  12. any relevant additional comments reported by the study authors.

We will compare extracted data for any differences. Differences will be resolved through discussion. If necessary, a third review author (FC) will be consulted to reach consensus.

Assessment of risk of bias in included studies

Two review authors (SP, KB) will independently assess the risk of bias (low, high, or unclear) of all included trials using the Cochrane ‘Risk of bias’ tool (Higgins 2011) for the following domains:

  1. sequence generation (selection bias);

  2. allocation concealment (selection bias);

  3. blinding of participants and personnel (performance bias);

  4. blinding of outcome assessment (detection bias);

  5. incomplete outcome data (attrition bias);

  6. selective reporting (reporting bias);

  7. any other bias.

Any disagreements will be resolved by discussion or by a third assessor. See Appendix 2 for a more detailed description of risk of bias for each domain.

Measures of treatment effect

We will analyze treatment effects in the individual trials using Review Manager 2014.

Continuous data

Continuous data will be reported as a mean difference (MD) with its 95% confidence interval (CI)

Dichotomous data

Dichotomous data will be reported using risk ratio (RR) and risk difference (RD), with respective 95% CIs. For those outcomes with a statistically significant RD for the pooled estimate from the meta‐analysis, the number needed to treat for an additional beneficial outcome (NNTB) or number needed to treat for an additional harmful outcome (NNTH), and respective 95% CIs, will be calculated.

Unit of analysis issues

For parallel‐group studies with individual randomisation, the unit of analysis will be the individual participant. For cluster‐randomized trials, where groups of participants are randomised instead of individuals, data will only be included in a meta‐analysis if a measure of effect (e.g. odds ratio with 95% CI) is available from an analysis which accounted properly for clustering (Higgins 2011). For cross‐over trials, where study participants undergo more than one study intervention, meta‐analyses will only be based on data coming from the first allocation period (if those data are available) (Higgins 2011), and only for the very short‐term treatment effects (i.e. measured during and immediately after the suctioning procedure). Treatment effects measured during allocation periods after cross‐over, and longer‐term treatment effects, will not be included in the analyses because of the risk "carry over" effects (Higgins 2011).

Dealing with missing data

The authors of included studies will be contacted to supply missing data. In the case of missing data, the number of participants with the missing data will be described in the results section and the 'Characteristics of included studies' table. The results will only be presented for the available participants. We will discuss the implications of the missing data in the discussion of the review.

Assessment of heterogeneity

The formal statistics described below will be used.

  1. The Chi2 test for homogeneity (p‐value less than 0.1) will be used to calculate whether statistical heterogeneity is present. Since this test has low power when the number of studies included in the meta‐analysis is small, the probability will be set at the 10% level of significance. Since this test has low power when the number of studies included in the meta‐analysis is small, the probability will be set at the 10% level of significance.

  2. The impact of statistical heterogeneity will be quantified using the I2 statistic available in Review Manager 5, which describes the percentage of total variation across studies due to heterogeneity rather than sampling error. This value will be interpreted based on the following thresholds, as identified in the Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions (Higgins 2011): less than 25% as no heterogeneity; 25% to 49% as low heterogeneity; 50% to 74% as moderate heterogeneity; and 75% and above as high heterogeneity. Where there is evidence of apparent or statistical heterogeneity, the source of the heterogeneity will be assessed using sensitivity and subgroup analyses looking for evidence of bias or methodological differences between trials.

Assessment of reporting biases

Reporting and publication bias will be investigated by examining the degree of asymmetry of a funnel plot if the number of trials included in the meta‐analysis is ten or more. Where we suspect reporting bias, we will attempt to contact study authors to ask them to provide missing outcome data. Where this is not possible and the missing data are thought to introduce serious bias, the impact of including such studies in the overall assessment of results will be explored by a sensitivity analysis.

Data synthesis

Since a certain degree of variation in study design, population, interventions and outcome assessment is expected to be found between included studies, we will perform the meta‐analyses using a random‐effects model, which assumes that the true effect might differ from study to study. A random‐effects meta‐analysis produces an estimate of the average of true effect sizes across studies.

For cluster‐randomized trials, we will use the generic inverse variance method.

Quality of evidence

We will use the GRADE approach, as outlined in the GRADE Handbook (Schünemann 2013), to assess the quality of evidence for the following (clinically relevant) outcomes:

  1. validated composite pain scores;

  2. physiological indicators;

  3. behavioral indicators;

  4. duration of mechanical ventilation;

  5. intraventricular hemorrhage;

  6. hypertension.

Two review authors will independently assess the quality of the evidence for each of the outcomes above. We will consider evidence from RCTs as high‐quality, but downgrade the evidence one level for serious (or two levels for very serious) limitations based upon the following: design (risk of bias), consistency across studies, directness of the evidence, precision of estimates and presence of publication bias. We will use the GRADEpro Guideline Development Tool (GRADEpro GDT) to create a ‘Summary of findings’ table to report the quality of the evidence.

The GRADE approach results in an assessment of the quality of a body of evidence in one of the four following grades.

  1. High quality: we are very confident that the true effect lies close to that of the estimate of the effect.

  2. Moderate quality: we are moderately confident in the effect estimate; the true effect is likely to be close to the estimate of the effect, but there is a possibility that it is substantially different.

  3. Low quality: our confidence in the effect estimate is limited; the true effect may be substantially different from the estimate of the effect.

  4. 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.

Subgroup analysis and investigation of heterogeneity

If the information is available, we plan to conduct the following subgroup analyses for the primary outcome:

  1. term versus preterm neonates (see Types of participants for definitions);

  2. endotracheal intubation versus tracheostomy.

Differences in effect between subgroups will be assessed by looking at the overlap of the confidence intervals of the summary effect estimates for the subgroups, and by performing a Chi2 test for homogeneity and calculating an I2 value for between‐subgroup difference.

Sensitivity analysis

We will perform sensitivity analyses to explore the impact of:

  1. the choice of statistical model (fixed‐effect versus random‐effects);

  2. methodological quality, by excluding studies with high risk of bias.