Summary of the best evidence for the prevention of nasal injury in preterm infants with nasal noninvasive ventilation
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: Due to immaturity, the nose of preterm infants can easily be injured, by even a short application of a nasal device. However, 20% to 60% of preterm infants suffer nasal damage while using nasal continuous positive airway pressure (NCPAP) due to weak skin tissue, prolonged use of nasal device, and improper nursing practices, leading to increased risk of infection and decreased compliance and tolerance. In this study, we retrieved, obtained and integrated the related evidences of prevention of nasal injury in premature infants with nasal noninvasive ventilation to provide reference for clinical practice. Methods: We searched the relevant guidelines, expert consensus, evidence summaries and systematic reviews in the databases and guideline websites of the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE), Scottish Intercollegiate Guidelines Network (SIGN), the Agency for Health care Research and Quality (AHRQ), Guidelines International Network (GIN), the World Health Organization (WHO) guideline websites, Registered Nurses' Association of Ontario (RANO), Association of Women's Health, Obstetric and Neonatal Nurses (AWHONN), European Pressure Ulcer Advisory Panel (EPUAP), Yi Maitong, British Medical Journal best-practice, Cochrane Library, UpToDate, Embase, PubMed, China National Knowledge Infrastructure (CNKI), Wanfang. The search was limited to the time of library establishment to February 2023. Results: In total, 16 articles were included, including six guidelines, three expert consensuses, two evidence summaries and five systematic reviews. Twenty-eight pieces of evidence were summarized from six aspects: risk assessment, ventilation and connection, skin protection, skin assessment, training and support, and continuous quality improvement. Conclusions: This study summarized the best evidence for the prevention of nasal injury in premature infants through nasal noninvasive ventilation. It is suggested that nurses should consider the actual clinical situation when applying the suggestions from the evidence, formulate corresponding nursing measures, and reduce the occurrence of nasal injury in premature 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 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 | 0.007 | 0.039 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.008 | 0.008 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.014 | 0.009 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.009 | 0.001 |
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.
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".