MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2897541236 · doi:10.1097/anc.0000000000000546

Effect of Unimodal and Multimodal Sensorimotor Interventions on Oral Feeding Outcomes in Preterm Infants

2018· review· en· W2897541236 on OpenAlexaff
Latisha Rhooms, Kimberly Dow, Cara Brandon, Grace Zhao, Sandra Fucile

Bibliographic record

VenueAdvances in Neonatal Care · 2018
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicInfant Development and Preterm Care
Canadian institutionsQueen's University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPsychological interventionMedicineCINAHLPsycINFOMEDLINEModalitiesIntervention (counseling)Physical medicine and rehabilitationPsychiatry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Preterm infants often experience difficulty with the transition from tube to oral feeding. While many unimodal and multimodal sensorimotor interventions have been generated to optimize oral feeding skills, there has been little cohesion between interventions. PURPOSE: The aims of this systematic review were to examine the effect of sensorimotor interventions on oral feeding outcomes and to determine whether multimodal interventions lead to better oral feeding performances than unimodal interventions. SEARCH STRATEGY: A systematic search of CINAHL, Embase, MEDLINE, and PsycINFO databases was conducted. Studies were reviewed to assess the types of interventions used to improve transition to full oral feeding, volume intake, weight gain, and length of hospital stay. RESULTS: The search identified 35 articles. Twenty-six studies examined a unimodal intervention, with the majority focusing on oral sensorimotor input and the others on tactile, auditory, and olfactory input. Nine studies assessed multimodal interventions, with the combination of tactile and kinesthetic stimulation being most common. Results varied across studies due to large differences in methodology, and caution is warranted when interpreting results across studies. The heterogeneity in the studies made it difficult to make any firm conclusions about the effects of sensorimotor interventions on feeding outcomes. Overall, evidence on whether multimodal approaches can lead to better oral feeding outcomes than a unimodal approach was insufficient. IMPLICATIONS FOR PRACTICE: The use of sensorimotor interventions to optimize feeding outcomes in preterm infants varies based on methods used and modalities. These factors warrant caution by clinicians who use sensorimotor interventions in the neonatal intensive care unit. IMPLICATIONS FOR RESEARCH: Large randomized clinical trials using a standardized approach for the administration of sensorimotor input are needed to further establish the effects on feeding outcomes in preterm infants.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.007
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.036
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.007
Threshold uncertainty score0.037

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0070.036
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0060.006
Bibliometrics0.0030.003
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.002
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0020.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0060.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.021
GPT teacher head0.381
Teacher spread0.361 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreReview

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations23
Published2018
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAdvances in Neonatal CareSame topicInfant Development and Preterm CareFrench-language works237,207