Effect of bucket hydrotherapy on clinical parameters in infants with bronchopulmonary dysplasia: A pilot randomized clinical trial
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Introduction It is unknown whether bucket hydrotherapy is beneficial to premature newborns with bronchopulmonary dysplasia (BPD). Objective To evaluate the effects of bucket hydrotherapy on physiological and behavioural parameters and the oxygen need in preterm infants with BPD during hospitalization. Methods Twenty infants with BPD were randomized into a control (conventional physiotherapy - PG) or an intervention group (conventional physiotherapy plus bucket hydrotherapy - BHG). All infants underwent twelve days of intervention, and data from the first (D1), sixth (D6) and twelfth (D12) days were analyzed. Respiratory rate (RR), heart rate (HR), peripheral oxygen saturation (SpO 2 ), inspired oxygen fraction (FiO 2 ), pain, respiratory effort, sleep, and wakefulness status were measured before, immediately after, and at 15, 30, and 60 minutes after the intervention. Results In the BHG, intragroup analysis showed lower values for FiO 2 on D1 (30’: p = 0.03, 60’: p = 0.02), HR on D6 ( p = 0.004) and RR on D12 ( p < 0.03), and higher values for SpO 2 on D12 ( p = 0.0003). Intergroup comparisons favored BHG for SpO 2 ( p = 0.03; effect size [ES] =0.99) and FiO 2 ( p < 0.02; ES > 0.47) on D1, HR changes on D6 ( p < 0.04; ES > 0.9) and D12 ( p = 0.009; ES = 0.61). No significant intra- or intergroup differences were found in pain, respiratory effort, sleep, or wakefulness ( p > 0.05 for all). Discussion Given the persistent gas exchange abnormalities in BPD, bucket hydrotherapy appears to be a feasible and beneficial non-pharmacological method for reducing oxygen requirements. Conclusion The present pilot study demonstrates that bucket hydrotherapy is a therapeutic intervention that reduces HR, RR and oxygen requirements in premature infants with BPD without inducing changes in behavioural parameters.
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 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.008 | 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".