↓ Skip to main content

Olfactive stimulation interventions for managing procedural pain in preterm and full-term neonates: a systematic review protocol

Overview of attention for article published in Systematic Reviews, October 2017
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

twitter
2 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
7 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
90 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.
Title
Olfactive stimulation interventions for managing procedural pain in preterm and full-term neonates: a systematic review protocol
Published in
Systematic Reviews, October 2017
DOI 10.1186/s13643-017-0589-1
Pubmed ID
Authors

Gwenaëlle De Clifford-Faugère, Andréane Lavallée, Marilyn Aita

Abstract

While hospitalized in the NICU, preterm neonates undergo many painful procedures. This may be the same for full-term neonates when longer hospitalization is required. Untreated and repeated pain has short-term as well as long-term consequences for these neonates. Pharmacological pain management methods have many limitations in their applications for both preterm and full-term neonates. A combination of different non-pharmacological methods is recommended for pain management. The effect of olfactive stimulation as a non-pharmacological pain management method was investigated by a few studies in the past years with premature and term neonates, but no systematic review has been conducted. The objective of this systematic review is to evaluate the effect of olfactive stimulation intervention on the pain response of preterm and full-term neonates during painful procedures. An electronic search will be conducted in various databases such as PubMed (1946 to date), MEDLINE (1946 to date), CINAHL (1981 to date), Embase (1947 to date), PsycINFO (1806 to date), Web of Science (1945 to date), CENTRAL and Scopus (1960 to date), and Proquest, without restriction for the year of publication. Only studies published in English or French will be included. The search will be conducted using the following three concepts: pain, odors, and neonates. Selection of articles, data extraction, and assessment of risk of bias will be conducted by two independent researchers. A third researcher will intervene in case of disagreement. According to the availability of studies and data homogeneity, the results will be combined to perform a meta-analysis, or they will be described by a narrative synthesis. This systematic review will provide light on the current state of knowledge on the effectiveness of olfactive stimulation interventions for managing pain in preterm and full-term neonates. This review will guide clinical practice as well as research to improve preterm and full-term neonates' pain management and prevent short-term and long-term complications caused by pain. PROSPERO CRD42017058021.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 2 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 90 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 90 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Bachelor 13 14%
Student > Master 8 9%
Lecturer 6 7%
Student > Postgraduate 5 6%
Other 4 4%
Other 15 17%
Unknown 39 43%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Nursing and Health Professions 22 24%
Medicine and Dentistry 12 13%
Engineering 4 4%
Neuroscience 3 3%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 2 2%
Other 7 8%
Unknown 40 44%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. 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 26 July 2018.
All research outputs
#18,574,814
of 23,006,268 outputs
Outputs from Systematic Reviews
#1,790
of 2,005 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#250,285
of 326,542 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Systematic Reviews
#33
of 42 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,006,268 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 11th percentile – i.e., 11% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 2,005 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 12.8. This one is in the 4th percentile – i.e., 4% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
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 326,542 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 12th percentile – i.e., 12% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 42 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 7th percentile – i.e., 7% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.