MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4234136253 · doi:10.1002/14651858.cd001814

Developmental care for promoting development and preventing morbidity in preterm infants

2003· review· en· W4234136253 on OpenAlexaff
Amanda Symington, Janet Pinelli

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews · 2003
Typereview
Languageen
Field
Topic
Canadian institutionsHamilton Health SciencesMcMaster Children's Hospital
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicinePsychological interventionNeonatal intensive care unitCINAHLPediatricsMEDLINECochrane LibraryMechanical ventilationRandomized controlled trialIntensive careIntensive care medicineNursingPsychiatrySurgery

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Preterm infants experience a range of morbidity related to the immaturity of their organ systems and to concurrent disease states. An unfavourable environment in the neonatal intensive care unit (NICU) may compound this morbidity. Modification of the environment could minimize the iatrogenic effects. Developmental care is a broad category of interventions designed to minimize the stress of the NICU environment. These interventions may include one or more elements such as control of external stimuli (vestibular, auditory, visual, tactile), clustering of nursery care activities, and positioning or swaddling of the preterm infant. Individual strategies have also been combined to form programs, such as the 'Neonatal Individualized Developmental Care and Assessment Program' (NIDCAP) (Als 1986). OBJECTIVES: In preterm infants, do developmental care interventions reduce neurodevelopmental delay, poor weight gain, length of hospital stay, length of mechanical ventilation, physiological stress and other clinically relevant adverse outcomes? SEARCH STRATEGY: The Neonatal Review Group search strategy was utilized. Searches were made of Medline from 1966 to July, 2000, and of CINAHL, The Cochrane Library, and conference and symposia proceedings in the English language from 1990 to July, 2000. A list of all relevant articles was sent to two experts in the field to identify any omissions or additional unpublished studies. SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomized trials in which elements of developmental care are compared to routine nursery care for infants < 37 weeks gestation and that measured clinically relevant outcomes. Reports were in English or a language for which a translator was available. Computerized searches were conducted and all potentially relevant titles and abstracts were extracted. Retrieved articles were assessed for relevance independently by two reviewers, based on predetermined criteria. Articles that met all criteria for relevance were assessed for methodological quality based on predetermined criteria. Articles judged to have the appropriate quality by both reviewers were included in the analysis. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Data were extracted independently by the two authors. Meta-analyses were conducted for each intervention where the same outcome measures and/or instruments were used within comparable time points. MAIN RESULTS: This review detected 31 eligible randomized controlled trials involving four major groups of developmental care interventions, 19 sub-groups and multiple clinical outcomes. The results of the review indicate that developmental care interventions demonstrate some benefit to preterm infants with respect to: improved short-term growth outcomes, decreased respiratory support, decreased length and cost of hospital stay, and improved neurodevelopmental outcomes to 24 months corrected age. These findings were based on two or three small trials for each outcome, and did not involve meta-analyses of more than two trials for any one outcome. Although a number of other benefits were demonstrated, those results were from single studies with small sample sizes. The lack of blinding of the assessors was a significant methodological flaw in half of the studies. The cost of the interventions and personnel was not considered in any of the studies. REVIEWER'S CONCLUSIONS: Because of the inclusion of multiple interventions in most studies, the determination of the effect of any single intervention is difficult. Although there is evidence of some benefit of developmental care interventions overall, and no major harmful effects reported, there were a large number of outcomes for which no or conflicting effects were demonstrated. The single trials that did show a significant effect of an intervention on a major clinical outcome were based on small sample sizes, and the findings were often not supported in other small trials. Before a clear direction for practice can be supported, evidence demonstrating more consistent effects of developmental care interventions on important short- and long-term clinical outcomes is needed. The economic impact of the implementation and maintenance of developmental care practices should be considered by individual institutions.

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)0.005
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.021
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Systematic review · Consensus signal: Systematic review
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.016
Threshold uncertainty score0.053

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0050.021
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0030.002
Bibliometrics0.0090.010
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.002
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0030.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0160.001

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 head0.159
GPT teacher head0.392
Teacher spread0.233 · 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 designSystematic review
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

Citations115
Published2003
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe Cochrane Database of Systematic ReviewsFrench-language works237,207