Search PubMed⌕ Search

SEARCH · Search PubMed

Search Search PubMed

Search indexed PubMed citations on genomics, clinical trials, systematic reviews and public health. Explore titles, authors and supplied subject terms, then open the PubMed record.

Quote a phrase for an exact phrase match. Source license links do not imply unrestricted reuse.

9 recordsLinked to original sources
PubMed2026

Comparison between the thoracoabdominal rebalancing (TAR) method and the slow expiratory flow acceleration (SEFA) technique in preterm newborns: protocol for a randomised controlled clinical trial.

INTRODUCTION: Preterm newborns (PTNB) present respiratory immaturity and increased susceptibility to muscle fatigue. The thoracoabdominal rebalancing (TAR) method is a physiotherapeutic intervention developed in Brazil that aims to reorganise the synergy of the thoracoabdominal muscles and reduce the effort of the respiratory muscles, a benefit that is particularly important for PTNB; however, the evidence regarding its effectiveness in this population remains inconclusive. Therefore, this study aims to compare the short-term effects of the TAR method and the slow expiratory flow acceleration (SEFA) technique in improving respiratory distress and peripheral oxygen saturation (SpO2) in PTNB admitted to neonatal intensive care unit (NICU). METHODS AND ANALYSIS: The study will be a randomised, controlled, two-arm, parallel-group, single-blind clinical trial. 68 participants will be randomly assigned to one of the two treatment groups. Group 1 will receive four handling techniques of the TAR method for 10 min, followed by the rhinopharyngeal retrograde clearance with saline instillation (RRC+I) technique. Group 2 will receive the SEFA technique for 10 min, also followed by RRC+I. Primary outcomes are respiratory distress and SpO2. Secondary outcomes are respiratory rate (RR), heart rate (HR), pain, behaviour and diaphragmatic excursion. Assessments will be conducted by a blinded researcher at baseline (T0), immediately after the intervention (T1) and at the 30-minute follow-up (T2). Data will be described using measures of central tendency and dispersion and absolute and relative frequencies. An intention-to-treat analysis will be performed, and intragroup and intergroup comparisons will be assessed using generalised estimating equations (GEE). ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: The Research Ethics Committee of the Faculty of Health Sciences of Trairi of the Federal University of Rio Grande do Norte approved this study (number 8,055,786). The results will be disseminated through peer-reviewed journal publications, scientific conferences presentations and knowledge translation to the public. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: This study was registered on Brazilian Registry of Clinical Trials (ReBEC) on 9 January 2026 (RBR-3gbsyc2).

Humans↗
PubMed2026

CanDo (Canadian Donor Milk) randomised controlled trial: pasteurised human donor milk supplementation in the well-baby unit - protocol.

INTRODUCTION: Mother's milk is the gold standard for feeding newborns. Despite lactation support while in hospital, supplementation rates remain high in Canadian well-baby units at 35-50%. When supplementation is needed, the choice between formula milk and pasteurised human donor milk (donor milk) remains uncertain with a lack of clinical trials to inform this practice. This study aims to compare the effect of supplementing mother's milk with donor milk versus formula in infants at higher risk for supplementation (infants of diabetic mothers, infants born small for gestational age or with a birth weight less than 2.5 kg and late preterm infants born between 350/7 and 366/7 weeks gestation). METHODS AND ANALYSIS: This is an ongoing, open-label, single-centre, randomised controlled trial conducted at Mount Sinai Hospital, Toronto, Canada. A total of 112 infants (56 per group) will be randomised to receive donor milk or infant formula as a supplement to mother's milk during their initial hospital stay, when supplementation is deemed necessary by the family and/or healthcare team. The primary outcome is exclusive human milk feeding at 4 months of age. Secondary outcomes include any or exclusive human milk feeding at 1, 2 and 3 months; infant growth and health indicators and breastfeeding self-efficacy. Exploratory outcomes encompass infant temperament; parental mental health (assessed using the State-Trait Anxiety Inventory and Edinburgh Postnatal Depression Scale); milk cortisol concentrations; and informal milk sharing comparing donor milk and formula supplementation. Follow-up includes monthly telephone assessments and a virtual or in-person visit at 4 months post partum. Data will be analysed using intention-to-treat principles. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: The CanDo trial has received ethics approval from the Mount Sinai Hospital Research Ethics Board and the University of Toronto. Results will be disseminated through peer-reviewed journals, conference presentations and stakeholder engagement with hospital and public health decision-makers. Findings will address a critical evidence gap regarding the use of donor milk supplementation in well-baby units and may inform future clinical practice and policy in newborn feeding. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: NCT06315127.

Humans↗
PubMed2026

Triggering modalities to synchronise non-invasive respiratory support in preterm infants: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: Increasing evidence suggests that synchronised nasal intermittent positive pressure ventilation (sNIPPV) may be the optimal mode of non-invasive respiratory support. However, no comprehensive review of sNIPPV modes is available. This review aims to describe different synchronisation methods for sNIPPV and compare their effectiveness in clinical, physiological and technical outcomes with other modes of non-invasive respiratory support. METHODS: This review identified all clinical studies in preterm infants that compared sNIPPV to other non-invasive respiratory support modes or compared different trigger modalities between 1990 and 2026. A search was carried out in MEDLINE, Embase and the Cochrane Library. Main outcomes were categorised as clinical (eg, extubation failure (EF)), physiological (eg, breathing effort) and technical (eg, synchronisation rate). RESULTS: 49 studies (2864 infants) were included, with a low to moderate risk of bias. Meta-analysis showed a reduction in EF (risk ratio=0.38; 95% CI 0.17 to 0.85; p=0.03) in favour of sNIPPV compared with nasal continuous positive airway pressure (nCPAP). Physiological outcomes were significantly improved during sNIPPV compared with nCPAP and nasal intermittent positive pressure ventilation (NIPPV), especially breathing effort. When reviewing technical outcomes, non-invasive neurally adjusted ventilatory assist showed lower patient-ventilator asynchrony (PVA) (index ranging from 7% to 50%), a higher synchronisation rate (80%-99%) and a shorter trigger delay (35 ms) compared with other sNIPPV modes. CONCLUSIONS: This review shows that synchronising NIPPV results in consistent physiological (reduced patient effort) and technical benefits (reduced PVA). However, evidence on positive effects on (long-term) major clinical outcomes remains limited and requires further studies. PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER: CRD420251022479.

Humans↗
PubMed2026

Multisensory stimulation for promoting development and preventing morbidity in preterm infants.

RATIONALE: Multisensory stimulation is a structured, developmentally appropriate intervention that provides simultaneous or sequential stimulation of two or more senses (e.g. tactile, auditory, visual, or vestibular) in a controlled and non-stressful manner, with the aim of supporting early neurodevelopment in preterm infants. It has the potential to enhance physiological regulation in preterm infants by stabilizing key functions, such as respiratory patterns, heart rate, and oxygen saturation; reducing the need for respiratory support; and improving feeding performance and sleep regulation. Targeted multisensory interventions have also been associated with improved neurodevelopmental outcomes, including enhanced psychomotor development and visual function. OBJECTIVES: To assess the benefits and harms of multisensory stimulation compared to any single sensory intervention or standard care on major neurodevelopmental disability, mortality, and growth in preterm infants. SEARCH METHODS: We searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, Emcare, CINAHL, Epistemonikos, two trial registries, and conference abstracts up to 28 November 2025. We checked reference lists of included trials, and systematic reviews on sensory interventions. ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA: We included 18 randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing multisensory stimulation in preterm infants with no intervention (placebo or standard care), and one RCT comparing multisensory stimulation with single-sense stimulation (tactile stimulation). OUTCOMES: Our critical outcomes were major neurodevelopmental disability at 18 to 24 months: cerebral palsy (CP), developmental delay, intellectual impairment, blindness, sensorineural deafness; death during initial hospitalization; and total weight gain (grams), assessed at discharge. When comparing multisensory stimulation with single-sense intervention, we also included weight gain during the intervention, an outcome added during the post-hoc analysis. Important outcomes were duration of hospital stay, of NICU stay, and of respiratory support; and time until full oral feeding. RISK OF BIAS: We used the Cochrane tool, RoB 2. SYNTHESIS METHODS: We conducted meta-analyses using fixed-effect models to calculate risk ratios (RR) for dichotomous data, and mean differences (MDs) for continuous data, each with its 95% confidence intervals (CIs). We assessed statistical heterogeneity by calculating the I2 statistic when we included more than two trials in a meta-analysis. We evaluated the certainty of evidence using GRADE. INCLUDED STUDIES: We included 19 trials (1554 newborn infants): 18 studies compared multisensory stimulation with standard care; one compared multisensory stimulation with single-sensory stimulation (tactile). In 10 studies, the primary aim was to assess the neurobehavioral outcomes of multisensory stimulation on preterm neo-nates. The other nine studies aimed to assess the impact of multisensory stimulation on weight gain during the intervention, weight gain until hospital discharge, length of neonatal intensive care unit (NICU) stay, length of hospital stay, time until full oral feeding, length of respiratory support, or a combination. In the abstract we report results for the critical outcomes only. We identified 13 ongoing studies. Four studies are awaiting assessment. SYNTHESIS OF RESULTS: Multisensory stimulation compared to standard care No studies reported on these major neurodevelopmental disabilities, assessed at 18 to 24 months' corrected age (CA): developmental delay, intellectual impairment, blindness, or sensorineural deafness. One study reported on rates of CP at 12 months of age. The evidence is very uncertain about the effect of multisensory stimulation on CP (RR 0.67, 95% CI 0.28 to 1.58; I² not applicable; 1 study, 18 participants; very low-certainty evidence). The evidence suggests that multisensory stimulation may result in little to no difference in death during initial hospitalization (RR 0.97, 95% CI 0.54 to 1.73; I² not applicable; 1 study, 395 participants; low-certainty evidence). Multisensory stimulation may increase total weight gain prior to discharge (MD 72.67, 95% CI 68.23 to 77.12; I² = 0%; 3 studies, 474 participants; low-certainty evidence). Multisensory stimulation compared to single-sense (tactile) stimulation No studies reported on major neurodevelopmental disability, assessed at 18 to 24 months' CA, or death during initial hospitalization. The evidence is very uncertain about the effect of multisensory stimulation compared to tactile stimulation on weight gain during the intervention (MD -175.00, 95% CI -376.60 to 26.60; I² not applicable; 1 study, 20 participants; very low-certainty evidence). The certainty of the evidence was low to very low across outcomes, primarily due to risk of bias, imprecision from small sample sizes and wide CIs, and in some cases, inconsistency. The evidence base was also limited by the lack of reporting of relevant outcomes and reliance on surrogate outcomes or shorter follow-up periods. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: The available evidence on multisensory stimulation in preterm infants is limited and of low to very low certainty. No included studies reported on major neurodevelopmental disabilities at 18 to 24 months' CA, which represented a critical outcome for this review. Evidence regarding the effect of multisensory stimulation on CP is very uncertain, as it is based on a single small study reporting a surrogate outcome at 12 months. Multisensory stimulation may result in little to no difference in mortality during the initial hospitalization. It may increase total weight gain prior to discharge. However, the clinical significance of this finding is uncertain, particularly given the low certainty of the evidence and the multifactorial nature of growth in preterm infants. The evidence is very uncertain about the effect of multisensory stimulation compared to single-sense (tactile) stimulation on weight gain during the intervention. The only included study did not report major neurodevelopmental disabilities at 18 to 24 months' CA, mortality during the initial hospitalization, or total weight gain prior to discharge, which represented the critical outcomes for this review. Overall, the current evidence does not allow firm conclusions about the effectiveness of multisensory stimulation in promoting development or preventing morbidity in preterm infants. Future studies on multisensory stimulation should use more rigorous designs, larger samples, and report interventions using the template for intervention description and replication (TIDieR) checklist to ensure transparency. They should also report essential outcomes, such as neonatal death, major neurodevelopmental disabilities, length of hospital and NICU stay, time to full oral feeding, duration of respiratory support, and weight gain, to better assess the long‑term effects of multisensory stimulation in preterm infants. FUNDING: This Cochrane review had no dedicated funding. REGISTRATION: Protocol available via DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD016073.

Humans↗
PubMed2026

Umbilical Cord-Derived Cell-Based Interventions for Bronchopulmonary Dysplasia and Related Complications in Preterm Infants: A Bayesian Sparse-Data Meta-Analysis.

Bronchopulmonary dysplasia (BPD) is a major complication of prematurity with limited disease-modifying therapies. We evaluated umbilical cord-derived cell-based interventions for BPD and related complications in preterm infants. This Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses 2020-based systematic review and meta-analysis were registered in PROSPERO. PubMed, Cochrane Library, Web of Science, CNKI, and Wanfang were searched from inception to June 14, 2026. Comparative clinical studies of umbilical cord-derived cell-based interventions in preterm infants at risk of or diagnosed with BPD were included. Outcomes included BPD, BPD severity, death, persistent pulmonary hypertension of the newborn (PPHN), patent ductus arteriosus (PDA), intraventricular hemorrhage (IVH), necrotizing enterocolitis (NEC), retinopathy of prematurity (ROP), late-onset sepsis (LOS), and adverse events (AEs). Bayesian random-effects meta-analysis used a binomial-normal hierarchical model to estimate pooled odds ratios (ORs), 95% credible intervals (CrIs), prediction intervals, and heterogeneity. Twelve studies were included. Umbilical cord-derived cell-based interventions showed a possible protective effect on overall BPD (OR, 0.48; 95% CrI, 0.14-1.20). Stronger associations were observed for severe BPD (OR, 0.17; 95% CrI, 0.01-0.85), moderate or severe BPD (OR, 0.28; 95% CrI, 0.09-0.70), and ROP stage ≥3 (OR, 0.17; 95% CrI, 0.02-0.65). No conclusive benefit or harm was observed for death, PPHN, PDA, IVH, NEC, or LOS. No treatment-related serious AEs were identified. However, prediction intervals were generally wide, and the certainty of evidence was low to very low for most outcomes. Umbilical cord-derived cell-based interventions may reduce the risk of moderate or severe BPD in preterm infants, with an additional potential benefit for ROP stage ≥3. Current evidence remains limited, and larger randomized trials with standardized outcomes and long-term follow-up are needed.

Humans↗
PubMed2026

Complementary feeding patterns in preterm and term infants.

Complementary feeding is essential for infants' nutritional status and development, marking the transition to solid foods when breast milk or formula alone is insufficient. Despite its importance, clear recommendations on which foods to introduce when initiating complementary feeding in preterm infants are lacking. By using data from our previously published randomized controlled trial on the timing of complementary feeding in preterm infants, the current study explores the complementary feeding patterns of preterm infants and compares them with those of term-born infants, providing insights into parental decision-making and potential long-term health impacts. Complementary feeding practices differed significantly between preterm (n&#x202f;=&#x202f;255) and term (n&#x202f;=&#x202f;159) infants, with preterm infants more often receiving vegetables as their first solid food (85.4% versus 68.8%, difference 17.6% with 95% CI 12-35%). The group with early introduction of vegetables had a lower BMI-for-age z-scores (&#x3b2; -0.28 [95% CI -0.55 - 0.02]) and weight-for-height z-scores (&#x3b2; -0.27 [95% CI -0.53 to -0.01]) at two years of age. Additionally, preterm infants showed a greater variety in the numbers of different fruits and vegetables consumed by six months (corrected) age than term-born counterparts (8.29 (SD 3.65) versus 6.26 (SD 3.47), p&#x202f;<&#x202f;0.001). These results indicate that complementary feeding patterns in preterm infants differ from term-born infants, with potential positive implications on growth. These data contribute to the development of accurate feeding protocols for preterm infants. Given that feeding practices are culturally influenced, further multinational research is essential to refine complementary feeding guidelines for preterm infants and support caregivers in informed decision-making.

Humans↗
PubMed2026

Impact of kangaroo care on circadian rhythm, growth, physiological stability in premature infants, and cortisol and melatonin levels in maternal breast milk: A randomized controlled trial.

PURPOSE: This study aimed to examine the effects of regular kangaroo care (KC) on sleep-wake cycles, growth, physiological stability, and maternal breast milk cortisol and melatonin levels in premature infants. DESIGN: This study was a parallel group, single-blind, pre-test-post-test, randomised controlled trial (RCT). METHODS: This randomized controlled study was conducted in a neonatal intensive care unit (NICU) in T&#xfc;rkiye between September 2024 and September 2025 Thirty-six premature infants were randomized to intervention (n = 28) or control (n = 28). Infants in the intervention group received KC for three consecutive days, twice daily (10:00 a.m. and 10:00 p.m.) for 60 min per session. Data were collected using the Infant Information Form, Physiological Parameters Monitoring Chart, and Premature Infant Sleep-Wake Cycles Tracking Chart. Sleep-wake cycles were monitored using a Bispectral Index device. Breast milk cortisol and melatonin levels were measured at baseline and on day three using the competitive ELISA method. The study was registered at ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT06589349). RESULTS: Regular KC had a statistically significant effect on BIS values, heart rate, respiratory rate, oxygen saturation, and body temperature (p < 0.05). No statistically significant effects were observed on infant body weight or on maternal breast milk cortisol and melatonin levels (p > 0.05). CONCLUSION: The findings indicate that regular KC is associated with improved regulation of the sleep-wake cycle and enhanced physiological stability in premature infants. No significant changes were observed in maternal breast milk cortisol or melatonin levels following KC.

Humans↗
PubMed2026

Less Invasive Surfactant Administration Using Video Laryngoscope to Decrease Pain in Neonates: A Randomized Controlled Trial.

OBJECTIVES: To assess whether the use of video laryngoscope, when compared to conventional laryngoscope decreases pain (assessed by Faceless Acute Neonatal Pain Scale) in preterm neonates while administering surfactant by LISA. METHODS: Preterm neonates <&#x2009;35 weeks requiring FiO2&#x2009;>&#x2009;0.3 on CPAP pressure of at least 6&#x2009;cm of H2O were administered surfactant by LISA technique either by video laryngoscope (Intervention) or conventional laryngoscope (Control). Faceless Acute Neonatal Pain Scale was used to determine pain 5&#x2009;min before the procedure, immediately, 5&#x2009;min, and 10&#x2009;min after the procedure. The primary outcome was severity of pain; secondary outcomes were time taken to complete the procedure, number of attempts, incidence of IVH, and adverse events during the procedure. RESULTS: In total, 42 neonates of <&#x2009;35 weeks gestation with comparable baseline demographics were randomized into 2 groups. The median (IQR) FANS score immediately post-procedure in the intervention arm was 2 (2-4) versus 2 (1-4) in the control arm, p&#x2009;=&#x2009;0.79. There was no statistical difference in the secondary outcomes studied. CONCLUSION: The two groups had no difference in the pain score. The pain experienced by neonates during the LISA procedure was moderate and of short duration and it did not depend on the type of laryngoscope used. Moderate pain during the procedure can be managed with nonpharmacological measures; thereby, the use of sedatives or analgesics can be avoided, which might be of concern. There was no difference in the number of attempts or in time taken to complete the procedure when performed by neonatologists experienced in using conventional laryngoscopes compared to video laryngoscopes. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Clinical Trial Registry of India: CTRI/2022/09/045204 on 05.09.2022.

Humans↗