MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4399898729 · doi:10.21037/tp-24-92

Best evidence summary of sleep protection in premature infants in the neonatal intensive care unit: a narrative review

2024· review· en· W4399898729 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Yujing Gu, Yunfei Tang, Xiaoyin Chen, Jun Xie

Bibliographic record

VenueTranslational Pediatrics · 2024
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicInfant Development and Preterm Care
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineNeonatal intensive care unitNarrative reviewPediatricsIntensive care medicineNarrativeSleep (system call)Intensive careLiterature

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Background and Objective: Sleep influences the interaction between infants and their environment, as well as the achievement of crucial milestones in motor and language development. This is particularly significant for preterm infants in vulnerable positions. However, prematurely born infants in the neonatal intensive care unit (NICU) are exposed to various stimuli such as noise and light, which disrupt their normal sleep patterns. This study assesses and consolidates the existing evidence on non-pharmacological strategies for protecting and promoting sleep in preterm infants. By providing an evidence-based data repository, it offers a valuable reference for clinical interventions. Methods: We conducted computer-based searches using various databases and resources, including UpToDate, BMJ Best Practice, Guidelines International Network (GIN), National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence (NICE), Scottish Intercollegiate Guidelines Network (SIGN), National Guideline Clearinghouse (NGC), Registered Nurses Association of Ontario (RNAO), Joanna Briggs Institute (JBI), World Health Organization (WHO), Cochrane Library, Web of Science, PubMed, China National Knowledge Infrastructure (CNKI), Wanfang Data, and China Biology Medicine disc (CBM). The search period spanned from January 2014 to May 2024. Key Content and Findings: We have included a total of 22 articles in our review, comprising two guidelines, 11 systematic reviews, 1 evidence summary, 1 technical report, 2 practice recommendations, and 5 randomized controlled trials. The evidence was synthesized from eight domains: sleep team construction, risk factor assessment, sleep assessment tools, positional management, noise control, light management, sensory stimulation, and hospital-home transition sleep management, resulting in 27 pieces of evidence. Conclusions: This study summarizes the optimal evidence for the management of sleep in premature infants, providing empirical support for standardizing the management of sleep in premature infants. It is recommended that healthcare professionals judiciously apply the best evidence while considering the clinical context, thus promoting safe sleep for 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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
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 score0.474
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.002
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.077
GPT teacher head0.366
Teacher spread0.289 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

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

Citations8
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueTranslational PediatricsSame topicInfant Development and Preterm CareFrench-language works237,207