| Literature DB >> 33319018 |
Senthikumaran Ravikumar1, Rangan Srinivasaraghavan2, Dhandapany Gunasekaran1, Sumathy Sundar3, Palanisamy Soundararajan1.
Abstract
BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: To determine whether vestibular stimulation offered by Indian hammock and music intervention are useful in reducing the occurrence of infantile colic in term infants.Entities:
Keywords: Hammock; Infantile colic; Music; Vestibular stimulation
Year: 2019 PMID: 33319018 PMCID: PMC7729235 DOI: 10.1016/j.ijpam.2019.12.004
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Int J Pediatr Adolesc Med ISSN: 2352-6467
Fig. 1Consort flow diagram summarizing the methodology.
Table showing comparison of baseline variables among all the three groups.
| Predictors | Group 1 (music) | Group 2 (hammock) | Group 3 (control) | Chi square value ( |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Male | 71 | 69 | 63 | 0.78, df = 2 (0.68) |
| Female | 75 | 76 | 81 | |
| Early term | 77 | 85 | 76 | – |
| Full term | 69 | 57 | 66 | |
| Late term | 0 | 3 | 2 | |
| AGA | 135 | 133 | 131 | 1.12, df = 4 (0.89) |
| SGA | 9 | 10 | 9 | |
| LGA | 2 | 2 | 4 | |
| ≤20 | 5 | 3 | 7 | 3.34, df = 6 (0.77) |
| 21–25 | 57 | 58 | 60 | |
| 26–30 | 68 | 69 | 58 | |
| >30 | 16 | 15 | 19 | |
| Primipara | 72 | 66 | 77 | 1.83, df = 2 (0.40) |
| Multipara | 74 | 79 | 67 | |
| Vaginal delivery | 81 | 78 | 72 | 4.45, df = 2 (0.11) |
| LSCS | 65 | 67 | 72 | |
| Illiterate | 1 | 2 | 5 | 3.49, df = 4 (0.48) |
| School certificate | 126 | 124 | 119 | |
| Graduate | 19 | 19 | 20 | |
| Exclusive breast feeding | 138 | 138 | 137 | 0.08, df = 2 (0.96) |
| Non-Exclusive breast feeding | 8 | 7 | 7 | |
Proportion of infants who developed infantile colic among all three groups and difference in the prevalence due to intervention.
| Infantile colic satisfying ROME IV Criteria | Group 1 (music) | Group 2 (hammock) | Group 3 (control) |
|---|---|---|---|
| Total number of infants positive for infantile colic (n = 59) | 8 | 14 | 37 |
| Prevalence | 5.4% | 9.6% | 25.6% |
| Difference in prevalence | Group 3 vs Group 1 | 20% (95% Confidence limits = 12–28%) | |
| Group 3 vs Group 2 | 16% (95% Confidence limits = 7-25%) | ||
| Group 2 vs Group 1 | 4% (95% Confidence limits = 2–10%) | ||
a Any P value < .05 was considered as significant.