↓ Skip to main content

Breastfeeding for procedural pain in infants beyond the neonatal period

Overview of attention for article published in Cochrane database of systematic reviews, October 2016
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 5% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • Among the highest-scoring outputs from this source (#33 of 10,393)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (99th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (98th percentile)

Mentioned by

13 news outlets
491 tweeters
42 Facebook pages
1 Wikipedia page


13 Dimensions

Readers on

3 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Breastfeeding for procedural pain in infants beyond the neonatal period
Published in
Cochrane database of systematic reviews, October 2016
DOI 10.1002/14651858.cd011248.pub2
Pubmed ID

Denise Harrison, Jessica Reszel, Mariana Bueno, Margaret Sampson, Vibhuti S Shah, Anna Taddio, Catherine Larocque, Lucy Turner


Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) show that breastfeeding newborn infants during painful procedures reduces pain. Mechanisms are considered to be multifactorial and include sucking, skin-to-skin contact, warmth, rocking, sound and smell of the mother, and possibly endogenous opiates present in the breast milk. To determine the effect of breastfeeding on procedural pain in infants beyond the neonatal period (first 28 days of life) up to one year of age compared to no intervention, placebo, parental holding, skin-to-skin contact, expressed breast milk, formula milk, bottle feeding, sweet-tasting solutions (e.g. sucrose or glucose), distraction, or other interventions. We searched the following databases to 18 February 2016: the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) (the Cochrane Library), MEDLINE including In-Process & Other Non-Indexed Citations (OVID), Embase (OVID), PsycINFO (OVID), and CINAHL (EBSCO); the metaRegister of Controlled Trials (mRCT), ClinicalTrials.gov (clinicaltrials.gov), and the World Health Organization International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (WHO ICTRP) (apps.who.int/trialsearch/) for ongoing trials. We included RCTs and quasi-RCTs involving infants aged 28 days postnatal to 12 months and receiving breastfeeding while undergoing a painful procedure. Comparators included, but were not limited to, oral administration of water, sweet-tasting solutions, expressed breast or formula milk, no intervention, use of pacifiers, positioning, cuddling, distraction, topical anaesthetics, and skin-to-skin care. Procedures included, but were not limited to: subcutaneous or intramuscular injection, venipuncture, intravenous line insertion, heel lance, and finger lance. We applied no language restrictions. We used standard methodological procedures expected by Cochrane. Two review authors independently considered trials for inclusion in the review, assessed risk of bias, and extracted data. The main outcome measures were behavioural or physiological indicators and composite pain scores, as well as other clinically important outcomes reported by the authors of included studies. We pooled data for the most comparable outcomes and where data from at least two studies could be included. We used mean difference (MD) with 95% confidence interval (CI), employing a random-effects model for continuous outcomes measured on the same scales. For continuous outcomes measured on different scales, we pooled standardised mean differences (SMDs) and associated 95% CIs. For dichotomous outcomes, we planned to pool events between groups across studies using risk ratios (RRs) and 95% CIs. However, as insufficient studies reported dichotomous outcomes, we did not pool such events. We assessed the evidence using GRADE and created a 'Summary of findings' table. We included 10 studies with a total of 1066 infants. All studies were conducted during early childhood immunisation. As the breastfeeding intervention cannot be blinded, we rated all studies as being at high risk of bias for blinding of participants and personnel. We assessed nine studies as being at low risk of bias for incomplete outcome data. In addition, we rated nine studies as high risk for blinding of outcome assessment. We scored risk of bias related to random sequence generation, allocation concealment, and selective reporting as unclear for the majority of the studies due to lack of information.Our primary outcome was pain. Breastfeeding reduced behavioural pain responses (cry time and pain scores) during vaccination compared to no treatment, oral water, and other interventions such as cuddling, oral glucose, topical anaesthetic, massage, and vapocoolant. Breastfeeding did not consistently reduce changes in physiological indicators, such as heart rate. We pooled data for duration of cry from six studies (n = 547 infants). Breastfeeding compared to water or no treatment resulted in a 38-second reduction in cry time (MD -38, 95% CI -50 to -26; P < 0.00001). The quality of the evidence according to GRADE for this outcome was moderate, as most infants were 6 months or younger, and outcomes may be different for infants during their 12-month immunisation. We pooled data for pain scores from five studies (n = 310 infants). Breastfeeding was associated with a 1.7-point reduction in standardised pain scores (SMD -1.7, 95% CI -2.2 to -1.3); we considered this evidence to be of moderate quality as data were primarily from infants younger than 6 months of age. We could pool heart rate data following injections for only two studies (n = 186); we considered this evidence to be of low quality due to insufficient data. There were no differences between breastfeeding and control (MD -3.6, -23 to 16).Four of the 10 studies had more than two study arms. Breastfeeding was more effective in reducing crying duration or pain scores during vaccination compared to: 25% dextrose and topical anaesthetic cream (EMLA), vapocoolant, maternal cuddling, and massage.No included studies reported adverse events. We conclude, based on the 10 studies included in this review, that breastfeeding may help reduce pain during vaccination for infants beyond the neonatal period. Breastfeeding consistently reduced behavioural responses of cry duration and composite pain scores during and following vaccinations. However, there was no evidence that breastfeeding had an effect on physiological responses. No studies included in this review involved populations of hospitalised infants undergoing other skin-breaking procedures. Although it may be possible to extrapolate the review results to this population, further studies of efficacy, feasibility, and acceptability in this population are warranted.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 491 tweeters who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 3 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 3 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Bachelor 1 33%
Student > Master 1 33%
Other 1 33%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Unspecified 1 33%
Social Sciences 1 33%
Medicine and Dentistry 1 33%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 466. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 04 March 2019.
All research outputs
of 12,647,506 outputs
Outputs from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
of 10,393 outputs
Outputs of similar age
of 286,160 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
of 159 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 12,647,506 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 99th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 10,393 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 20.2. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 99% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 286,160 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 99% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 159 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 98% of its contemporaries.