Secondary Logo

Early Intervention to Improve Sucking in Preterm Newborns

A Systematic Review of Quantitative Studies

doi: 10.1097/ANC.0000000000000594
CE Test

The CE Test for this issue is available online on the journal Web site and can be taken at


  • Read the article. The test for this CE activity can only be taken online at Tests can no longer be mailed or faxed. You will need to create (its free!) and login to your personal CE Planner account before taking online tests. Your planner will keep track of all your Lippincott Professional Development online CE activities for you.
  • There is only one correct answer for each question. A passing score for this test is 12 correct answers. If you pass, you can print your certificate of earned contact hours and access the answer key. If you fail, you have the option of taking the test again at no additional cost.
  • For questions, contact Lippincott Professional Development: 1-800-787-8985.

Registration Deadline: December 4, 2020

Disclosure Statement: The authors and planners have disclosed that they have no financial relationships related to this article.

Provider Accreditation:

Lippincott Professional Development will award 1.5 contact hours for this continuing nursing education activity.

Lippincott Professional Development is accredited as a provider of continuing nursing education by the American Nurses Credentialing Center's Commission on Accreditation.

This activity is also provider approved by the California Board of Registered Nursing, Provider Number CEP11749 for 1.5 contact hours. Lippincott Professional Development is also an approved provider of continuing nursing education by the District of Columbia, Georgia, and Florida, CE Broker #50-1223. Your certificate is valid in all states.

This article has been approved by the National Association for Neonatal Nurses Certification Board for Category B credit toward recertification as an NNP.


The registration fee for this test is $11.95 for NANN members and $17.95 for nonmembers.

Back to Top | Article Outline




GENERAL PURPOSE: To provide information on the effects of early intervention on quantitative parameters of sucking in preterm infants.

LEARNING OBJECTIVES/OUTCOMES: After completing this continuing education activity, you should be able to:

  1. Discern issues related to oral feeding in preterm infants and the effects of interventions on the duration of sucking.
  2. Recognize the effects of early intervention on efficiency, frequency, and morphology parameters of sucking in preterm infants.
  1. Recent evidence suggests that the strongest predictors of the time for the transition from tube feeding to the first oral feeding are gestational age at birth plus and
    1. gavage volume infused.
    2. frequency of feeding.
    3. birth weight.
  2. In a study cited in the article, 2 year olds who had been dependent on an orogastric tube upon discharge after birth were reported to have lower
    1. motor scores.
    2. weight for age.
    3. social scores.
  3. Numerous studies have found that nonnutritive sucking (NNS) via pacifier was related to
    1. decreased length of hospital stay.
    2. improved immune function.
    3. increased oxygen saturation levels.
  4. Efficiency parameters used in the study described in this article include
    1. number of nutritive sucking (NS) bursts.
    2. milk volume measures.
    3. size of the sucking curve.
  5. In the NNS training studies, the efficiency parameter reported to have been significantly affected by the training was the
    1. overall transfer.
    2. proficiency.
    3. formula taken at first 5 minutes.
  6. Of the three frequency parameters explored in two studies, the one significantly affected by the NNS training was frequency of
    1. pauses in NS.
    2. NNS cycles/minute.
    3. feeds/day.
  7. In one NNS with auditory reinforcement study, the auditory reinforcement that showed significant effects on all quantitative outcome measures explored was
    1. ocean waves.
    2. a heartbeat.
    3. mother's voice.
  8. In particular, the NNS with auditory reinforcement trainings were found to be effective on which morphology parameter?
    1. suction amplitude
    2. mean pressure in NNS
    3. expression amplitude
  9. Which duration parameter was significantly affected by the NNS with auditory reinforcement training?
    1. mean sucking activity
    2. feeding duration
    3. NS burst duration
  10. All of the following efficiency parameters were found to be significantly affected by sensorimotor stimulation training in five studies, except for which parameters that were unaffected in one study?
    1. overall transfer and proficiency
    2. overall transfer and mean volume/suck (first 5″)
    3. mean volume/suck (first 5″) and proficiency
  11. The single duration parameter that was explored in one sensorimotor stimulation study and found to be improved by sensorimotor training was
    1. feeding duration.
    2. mean sucking activity.
    3. NS first burst duration.
  12. In the combined training, which frequency parameter was affected in 1 study?
    1. frequency of sucks per minute
    2. frequency of NS pauses
    3. frequency of sucks per burst
  13. Which duration parameter was affected by the combined training?
    1. feeding duration
    2. mean sucking activity
    3. NS burst duration
  14. Which of the following outcomes was significantly affected by the controlled flow vacuum-free bottle system used in the study by Fucile et al.?
    1. suction amplitude
    2. NS burst duration
    3. expression frequency
  15. Which types of parameters were found most frequently to be unaffected by the NNS-only training?
    1. morphology
    2. efficiency
    3. duration
  16. What parameters are considered to be most directly related to the infant nutrition capacity and therefore may have the highest clinical relevance?
    1. frequency
    2. duration
    3. efficiency
  17. Which statement regarding the effectiveness of the sensorimotor stimulation used in these studies is accurate?
    1. Oral/intraoral stimuli were the most effective.
    2. Perioral or extraoral stimuli were the most effective.
    3. The stimulation seemed to be effective irrespective of the stimulated region.
© 2019 by The National Association of Neonatal Nurses