{"title":"探索婴儿绞痛的人工干预:证据的范围审查。","authors":"Roberto Tedeschi, Federica Giorgi","doi":"10.3390/children12091246","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p><b>Background:</b> Infantile colic affects up to 40% of otherwise healthy infants and can severely distress caregivers. Manual therapies are increasingly employed as non-pharmacological options, yet their effectiveness and safety remain uncertain. <b>Methods:</b> A scoping review was conducted in accordance with Joanna Briggs Institute methodology and reported following PRISMA-ScR. Five databases (MEDLINE, CENTRAL, Scopus, PEDro, Web of Science) were searched from December 2024 to May 2025 without restrictions at the search stage; however, only English-language randomised controlled trials published from 2012 onwards were included at the eligibility stage to ensure consistency and focus on the most recent body of evidence. Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) evaluating hands-on interventions for infants ≤ 6 months with colic were eligible. Two reviewers independently screened records, charted data, and grouped outcomes narratively. <b>Results:</b> Seven RCTs investigated abdominal massage, paediatric Tuina, craniosacral therapy, chiropractic manipulation, osteopathic light touch, reflexology, and acupressure. Five trials reported statistically or clinically significant reductions in daily crying (0.6-6.6 h) compared with usual care or sham. Three studies also documented meaningful gains in sleep duration (1.1-2.8 h). Parent-reported satisfaction improved in most interventions. No serious adverse events were recorded, although safety monitoring was inconsistently reported. Substantial heterogeneity in diagnostic criteria, outcome measures, and intervention dose precluded meta-analysis. <b>Conclusions:</b> Low-force manual therapies may offer modest short-term relief for colicky infants and improve parental experience, with an apparently favourable safety profile. However, methodological variability and small sample sizes limit certainty. Standardised protocols, objective outcome measures, and robust adverse-event surveillance are priorities for future research.</p>","PeriodicalId":48588,"journal":{"name":"Children-Basel","volume":"12 9","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":2.1000,"publicationDate":"2025-09-17","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC12468284/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Exploring Manual Interventions for Infantile Colic: A Scoping Review of the Evidence.\",\"authors\":\"Roberto Tedeschi, Federica Giorgi\",\"doi\":\"10.3390/children12091246\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><p><b>Background:</b> Infantile colic affects up to 40% of otherwise healthy infants and can severely distress caregivers. Manual therapies are increasingly employed as non-pharmacological options, yet their effectiveness and safety remain uncertain. <b>Methods:</b> A scoping review was conducted in accordance with Joanna Briggs Institute methodology and reported following PRISMA-ScR. Five databases (MEDLINE, CENTRAL, Scopus, PEDro, Web of Science) were searched from December 2024 to May 2025 without restrictions at the search stage; however, only English-language randomised controlled trials published from 2012 onwards were included at the eligibility stage to ensure consistency and focus on the most recent body of evidence. Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) evaluating hands-on interventions for infants ≤ 6 months with colic were eligible. Two reviewers independently screened records, charted data, and grouped outcomes narratively. <b>Results:</b> Seven RCTs investigated abdominal massage, paediatric Tuina, craniosacral therapy, chiropractic manipulation, osteopathic light touch, reflexology, and acupressure. Five trials reported statistically or clinically significant reductions in daily crying (0.6-6.6 h) compared with usual care or sham. Three studies also documented meaningful gains in sleep duration (1.1-2.8 h). Parent-reported satisfaction improved in most interventions. No serious adverse events were recorded, although safety monitoring was inconsistently reported. Substantial heterogeneity in diagnostic criteria, outcome measures, and intervention dose precluded meta-analysis. <b>Conclusions:</b> Low-force manual therapies may offer modest short-term relief for colicky infants and improve parental experience, with an apparently favourable safety profile. However, methodological variability and small sample sizes limit certainty. Standardised protocols, objective outcome measures, and robust adverse-event surveillance are priorities for future research.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":48588,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Children-Basel\",\"volume\":\"12 9\",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":2.1000,\"publicationDate\":\"2025-09-17\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC12468284/pdf/\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Children-Basel\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.3390/children12091246\",\"RegionNum\":4,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"PEDIATRICS\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Children-Basel","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.3390/children12091246","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"PEDIATRICS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
摘要
背景:婴儿绞痛影响高达40%的健康婴儿,可严重困扰照顾者。手工疗法越来越多地被用作非药物疗法,但其有效性和安全性仍不确定。方法:根据Joanna Briggs研究所的方法进行范围审查,并在PRISMA-ScR报告。检索时间为2024年12月至2025年5月的5个数据库(MEDLINE、CENTRAL、Scopus、PEDro、Web of Science),检索阶段无限制;然而,只有2012年以后发表的英语随机对照试验被纳入资格阶段,以确保一致性并关注最新的证据。随机对照试验(rct)评估对≤6个月绞痛婴儿的动手干预是符合条件的。两名审稿人独立筛选记录,绘制数据图表,并对结果进行叙述分组。结果:7项随机对照试验调查了腹部按摩、小儿推拿、颅骶疗法、捏脊手法、整骨轻触、反射疗法和指压。五项试验报告,与常规护理或假手术相比,每日哭泣(0.6-6.6小时)有统计学或临床显著减少。三项研究也记录了睡眠时间的显著增加(1.1-2.8小时)。在大多数干预措施中,家长报告的满意度都有所提高。虽然安全监测报告不一致,但未记录严重不良事件。诊断标准、结果测量和干预剂量的大量异质性排除了荟萃分析。结论:低强度的手工疗法可能会对绞痛婴儿提供适度的短期缓解,并改善父母的体验,显然具有良好的安全性。然而,方法的可变性和小样本量限制了确定性。标准化的方案、客观的结果测量和强有力的不良事件监测是未来研究的重点。
Exploring Manual Interventions for Infantile Colic: A Scoping Review of the Evidence.
Background: Infantile colic affects up to 40% of otherwise healthy infants and can severely distress caregivers. Manual therapies are increasingly employed as non-pharmacological options, yet their effectiveness and safety remain uncertain. Methods: A scoping review was conducted in accordance with Joanna Briggs Institute methodology and reported following PRISMA-ScR. Five databases (MEDLINE, CENTRAL, Scopus, PEDro, Web of Science) were searched from December 2024 to May 2025 without restrictions at the search stage; however, only English-language randomised controlled trials published from 2012 onwards were included at the eligibility stage to ensure consistency and focus on the most recent body of evidence. Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) evaluating hands-on interventions for infants ≤ 6 months with colic were eligible. Two reviewers independently screened records, charted data, and grouped outcomes narratively. Results: Seven RCTs investigated abdominal massage, paediatric Tuina, craniosacral therapy, chiropractic manipulation, osteopathic light touch, reflexology, and acupressure. Five trials reported statistically or clinically significant reductions in daily crying (0.6-6.6 h) compared with usual care or sham. Three studies also documented meaningful gains in sleep duration (1.1-2.8 h). Parent-reported satisfaction improved in most interventions. No serious adverse events were recorded, although safety monitoring was inconsistently reported. Substantial heterogeneity in diagnostic criteria, outcome measures, and intervention dose precluded meta-analysis. Conclusions: Low-force manual therapies may offer modest short-term relief for colicky infants and improve parental experience, with an apparently favourable safety profile. However, methodological variability and small sample sizes limit certainty. Standardised protocols, objective outcome measures, and robust adverse-event surveillance are priorities for future research.
期刊介绍:
Children is an international, open access journal dedicated to a streamlined, yet scientifically rigorous, dissemination of peer-reviewed science related to childhood health and disease in developed and developing countries.
The publication focuses on sharing clinical, epidemiological and translational science relevant to children’s health. Moreover, the primary goals of the publication are to highlight under‑represented pediatric disciplines, to emphasize interdisciplinary research and to disseminate advances in knowledge in global child health. In addition to original research, the journal publishes expert editorials and commentaries, clinical case reports, and insightful communications reflecting the latest developments in pediatric medicine. By publishing meritorious articles as soon as the editorial review process is completed, rather than at predefined intervals, Children also permits rapid open access sharing of new information, allowing us to reach the broadest audience in the most expedient fashion.