Effect of Physiotherapy Intervention on Neonates With Respiratory Distress Syndrome: A Systematic Review of Evidence in Neonates
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: A common and serious illness in preterm infants, neonatal respiratory distress syndrome (NRDS) is characterized by lung immaturity and inadequate surfactant production.Objectives: This study evaluated the effectiveness of physiotherapy therapies in enhancing respiratory function and clinical outcomes in neonates suffering from NRDS.Methods: From the beginning to December 2024, searches were conducted using electronic databases, such as PubMed, Scopus, Embase, Cochrane Library, and CINAHL.Reference lists were manually searched in order to find additional records.Randomized controlled trials and quasi-experimental research involving preterm newborns (less than 37 weeks of gestation) with NRDS who underwent physiotherapy interventions (such as reflex rolling, lung squeeze method, or chest physiotherapy) were eligible.Studies that did not describe pertinent clinical or developmental results were excluded.The PEDro scale for cross-sectional and experimental research and the Newcastle-Ottawa scale (NOS) were used to evaluate the papers' quality.Results: Nine trials involving 398 preterm newborns were included.Although the interventions varied, they frequently focused on respiratory support.Numerous investigations documented improved radiological results and shorter durations of mechanical ventilation. Conclusions:In premature infants with NRDS, physiotherapy may offer temporary respiratory advantages, and certain therapies may promote motor development.
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 | 0.027 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.008 | 0.005 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.006 | 0.006 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 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".