Tactile Stimulation in Newborn Infants With Inadequate Respiration at Birth: A Systematic Review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
CONTEXT: For many years the International Liaison Committee on Resuscitation has recommended the use of tactile stimulation for initial management of infants born with inadequate respiratory effort at birth without systematically examining its effectiveness. OBJECTIVE: Systematic review to compare the effectiveness of tactile stimulation with routine handling in newly born term and preterm infants. DATA SOURCES: Medline, Embase, Cochrane CENTRAL, along with clinical trial registries. STUDY SELECTION: Randomized and non-randomized studies were included based on predetermined criteria. DATA EXTRACTION: Data were extracted independently by authors. Risk of Bias in Nonrandomized Studies of Interventions (ROBINS-I) was used to assess risk of bias in non-randomized studies. Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluations (GRADE) was used to assess the certainty of evidence. RESULTS: Among 2455 unique articles identified, 2 observational studies were eligible and qualitatively summarized. Because one of the studies was at critical risk of bias, only the other study including 243 preterm infants on continuous positive airway pressure with clinical indications for tactile stimulation was analyzed. It showed a reduction in tracheal intubation in infants receiving tactile stimulation compared with no tactile stimulation (12 of 164 vs 14 of 79, risk ratio of 0.41 [95% confidence interval 0.20 to 0.85]); however, the certainty of evidence was very low. LIMITATIONS: The available data were limited and only from observational studies. CONCLUSIONS: A potential benefit of tactile stimulation was identified but was limited by the very low certainty of evidence. More research is suggested to evaluate the effectiveness as well as the optimal type and duration of tactile stimulation.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.006 | 0.032 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.008 | 0.007 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".