Effects of Chest Physiotherapy in Preterm Infants with Respiratory Distress Syndrome: A Systematic Review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Preterm birth carries a higher risk of respiratory problems. The objectives of the study are to summarize the evidence on the effect of chest physiotherapy in the treatment of respiratory difficulties in preterm infants, and to determine the most appropriate technique and whether they are safe. Searches were made in PubMed, WOS, Scopus, Cochrane Library, SciELO, LILACS, MEDLINE, ProQuest, PsycArticle and VHL until 30 April 2022. Eligibility criteria were study type, full text, language, and treatment type. No publication date restrictions were applied. The MINCIR Therapy and PEDro scales were used to measure the methodological quality, and the Cochrane risk of bias and Newcastle Ottawa quality assessment Scale to measure the risk of bias. We analysed 10 studies with 522 participants. The most common interventions were conventional chest physiotherapy and stimulation of the chest zone according to Vojta. Lung compression and increased expiratory flow were also used. Heterogeneities were observed regarding the duration of the interventions and the number of participants. The methodological quality of some articles was not adequate. All techniques were shown to be safe. Benefits were described after conventional chest physiotherapy, Vojta's reflex rolling, and lung compression interventions. Improvements after Vojta's reflex rolling are highlighted in the comparative studies.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.008 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".