Oral Care in Critically Ill Infants and the Potential Effect on Infant Health: An Integrative Review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Critically ill infants admitted to the neonatal intensive care unit are at risk for ventilator-associated pneumonia and abnormal oral colonization. Adherence to evidence-based guidelines for oral care in critically ill adults is associated with improved short- and long-term health outcomes. However, oral care guidelines for critically ill infants admitted to the neonatal intensive care unit have not been established, possibly increasing their risk of ventilator-associated pneumonia and other health complications. OBJECTIVE: To describe and summarize the evidence regarding oral care for critically ill infants admitted to the neonatal intensive care unit and to identify gaps needing further investigation. METHODS: The MEDLINE (through PubMed) and CINAHL databases were searched for observational studies and randomized controlled trials investigating the effect of oral care on oral colonization, ventilator-associated pneumonia, and health outcomes of infants in the neonatal intensive care unit. RESULTS: This review of 5 studies yielded evidence that oral care may promote a more commensal oral and endotracheal tube aspirate microbiome. It may also reduce the risk of ventilator-associated pneumonia and length of stay in the neonatal intensive care unit. However, the paucity of research regarding oral care in this population and differences in oral care procedures, elements used, and timing greatly limit any possible conclusions. CONCLUSIONS: Oral care in critically ill infants may be especially important because of their suppressed immunity and physiological immaturity. Further appropriately powered studies that control for potential covariates, monitor for adverse events, and use recommended definitions of ventilator-associated pneumonia are needed to make clinical recommendations.
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 | 0.002 | 0.010 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.006 | 0.006 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 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".