Effects of respiratory physiotherapeutic interventions on pulmonary mechanics, vital parameters and pain in newborns: A systematic review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Objective: To evaluate the effects of conventional and non-conventional respiratory physiotherapy on pulmonary mechanics, vital parameters, and pain in newborns admitted to a neonatal intensive care unit. Methods and Analyses: Databases including PubMed, LILACS, SciELO, Science Direct, Cochrane Library, and Web of Science were searched. Randomized clinical trials comparing conventional and non-conventional respiratory physiotherapy in newborns (1 hour to 28 days) in neonatal intensive care units were included. Two reviewers independently screened titles and abstracts and assessed bias using the PEDro scale. Data were presented as mean, standard deviation, median, and quartiles. Meta-analysis was not feasible due to incomplete post-intervention data. Results: Out of 5,653 articles found, four were included. Two studies reported major increases in peripheral oxygen saturation after both respiratory physiotherapy techniques, a third showed decreased respiratory rate, and a fourth showed increased heart rate. Neither conventional nor non-conventional respiratory physiotherapy was suggested to cause pain in participants. No study evaluated lung mechanics parameters. The methodological quality of the included studies was predominantly moderate. Only one study exhibited low methodological quality. Conclusion: Both conventional and non-conventional respiratory physiotherapy techniques showed no adverse effects on vital signs or pain in NICU newborns. Further clinical trials are encouraged to assess lung function more comprehensively. Future studies should include short- and long-term evaluations of lung mechanics, respiratory distress, and pain.
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 | 0.006 | 0.023 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.011 | 0.008 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.006 | 0.006 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".