ArticleMedicine2018
A pilot study of limb stimulation for the treatment of neonatal apnea.
Article in Medicine, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.
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.
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.
Who cites it
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Association of monocyte to lymphocyte ratio with length of stay in intensive care unit in neonatal apnea modified by treatment.Translational pediatrics · 2025Article
- Sensory stimulation for apnoea mitigation in preterm infants.Pediatric research · 2022Review
- The effect of sensory stimulation on apnea of prematurity.Journal of Taibah University Medical Sciences · 2022Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
This study explored the feasibility effect and safety of the limb stimulation (LS) for the treatment of neonatal apnea (NAP).The cases of 30 eligible premature infants with NAP were included in this retrospective study. These cases were equally divided into an intervention group (n = 15) and a control group (n = 15). The infants in both groups received caffeine treatment. Moreover, cases in the intervention group also received LS for a total 30 hours, while the subjects in the control group did not receive LS during this period. The primary outcome included apnea frequency (number of episodes per 24 hours), and apnea rate. The secondary outcomes consisted of desaturation (number of episodes per 24 hours), and heart rate (beats per minute). Additionally, adverse events were also documented during the treatment period.After treatment, LS did not show better outcomes in apnea frequency (P = .48), apnea rate (P = .33), desaturation (P = .55), and heart rate (P = .41). Furthermore, no significant differences of all adverse events were found between 2 groups.The results of this pilot study demonstrated that LS might be not efficacious for premature infants with NAP.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.