Evidence map›Paper›PMID 10796214›Full record

SynthesisThe Cochrane database of systematic reviews2000

Kinesthetic stimulation versus theophylline for apnea in preterm infants.

D A Osborn, D J Henderson-Smart

Open access · bronzeAbstract readSystematic Review
In one paragraph

Synthesis in The Cochrane database of systematic reviews, 2000. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers, 3 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
5citing papers in PubMed, 3 pooled it
0.6field-weighted citation impact, top 28% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

5 citing papers in PubMed, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 16 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Kinesthetic stimulation for preventing apnea in preterm infants.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2000
    Pooled it
  2. Kinesthetic stimulation for treating apnea in preterm infants.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2000
    Pooled it
  3. Kinesthetic stimulation versus theophylline for apnea in preterm infants.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2000
    Pooled it
  4. Trial
  5. Review
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

2 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

D A OsbornDepartment of Neonatal Medicine, Royal Prince Alfred Hospital, Missenden Rd, Camperdown, Sydney, NSW, Australia, 2050. davido@peri.rpa.cs.nsw.gov.au.
D J Henderson-Smart
Royal Prince Alfred Hospital · AUUniversity of Sydney · AU

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundApnea of prematurity may lead to hypoxemia and bradycardia requiring resuscitative measures being instituted. Many treatments have been used in infants with apnea of prematurity, such as theophylline. Kinesthetic stimulation, which uses various forms of oscillating mattress, might also prevent apnea without using a standard drug such as theophylline.

objectivesMain question: in preterm infants, how does kinesthetic stimulation compare with methylxanthine therapy in the treatment of apnea of prematurity. SEARCH STRATEGY: The standard search strategy of the Neonatal Review Group was used. This included searches of the Oxford Database of Perinatal Trials, Cochrane Controlled Trials Register, MEDLINE, previous reviews including cross references, abstracts, conferences and symposia proceedings, expert informants and journal handsearching mainly in the English language. SELECTION CRITERIA: All trials using random or quasi-random patient allocation, in which kinesthetic stimulation was compared to methylxanthine therapy for apnea of prematurity, were eligible. No trials were excluded from the review that met these criteria. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Standard methods of the Cochrane Collaboration and its Neonatal Review Group were used with separate evaluation of trial quality, data extraction by both authors and synthesis of data using relative risk and weighted mean difference. MAIN

resultsA single small study of 20 infants (Saigal 1986) demonstrated a significant benefit to the infants receiving theophylline compared to those on an oscillating water bed in terms of mean rates of clinically important apnea (apnea > 14 seconds and bradycardia < 100, and cyanosis or receiving stimulation). There were no significant differences in adverse effects (death, sleep states, the Albert Einstein Neurobehavioural Index, adverse neurological outcomes, and the Bayley Mental Development Index at six and 12 months), although the infants on the OWB had a higher psychomotor index at six but not 12 months. There were some differences between the groups in incidence and severity of respiratory distress syndrome, and baseline apnea rates. REVIEWER'S

conclusionsThe results of this review should be treated with caution. Theophylline has been shown in one small study to be superior to kinesthetic stimulation at treating clinically important apnea of prematurity. There are currently no clear research questions regarding the comparison of methylxanthines and kinesthetic stimulation to treat apnea of prematurity.

Indexed as

BedsApneaCentral Nervous System StimulantsHumansInfant, NewbornInfant, PrematureInfant, Premature, DiseasesKinesiology, AppliedPhysical StimulationTheophyllineXanthinesCentral Nervous System StimulantsmethylxanthineTheophyllineXanthines

Identifiers

PMID10796214
PMCPMC7038707
OpenAlexW2139242630

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.