ArticleTranslational pediatrics2020
Efficacy of noise reduction bundle in reducing sound levels in a Level II neonatal care unit in China.
Article in Translational pediatrics, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Comparison of the Effects of Local Heat and Massage Using the Flick Application on Pain Caused by Vitamin K Injection in Neonates.Pediatric health, medicine and therapeutics · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundNoise is a hazard for newborns. Preterm infants are more vulnerable to negative effects of noise because their auditory system is at a critical period of neurodevelopment. We conducted this study to determine whether noise exposure in our Level II unit met the American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP)-issued recommendation of less than 45 dB. We also aimed to assess the efficacy of a bundle of noise reduction methods and the role of noise supervisors in assuring the compliance of modification.
methodsHourly mean equivalent continuous noise level (Leq) was collected in two phases: (I) Phase 1: baseline data for 4 weeks, (II) Phase 2: study period for 13 weeks, 1 week (Stage 1) under close monitoring by the noise supervisors and 12 weeks (Stages 2, 3 and 4, lasting 4 weeks each) without supervisors.
resultsThe baseline noise level consistently exceeded recommendations with an hourly mean incubator noise of 53.6 dB (±5.2). Our bundle resulted in a significant reduction in incubator noise levels by 9.1 dB (±0.75). The sound levels remained <45 dB most of the time except for three-time windows, correlating with morning handovers/physical assessments (7:00-9:00), procedures/discharges/phone calls (13:00-15:00), and night handovers (19:00-20:00). The change in the reduction was most significant (-4.1 dB) in Stage 1 during the day shift. A minor trend of decline in sound levels inside the incubator was observed from Stage 1 to Stage 2 (P=0.057), with a rebound occurring in Stage 3 followed by stabilization in Stage 4, suggesting the role of noise supervisors in ensuring the compliance of the modification.
conclusionsThe baseline noise levels consistently exceeded recommendations, but the bundle was effective in achieving the reduction. Noise supervisors are essential to ensure the compliance of the modification. Resolution focused on the three-time windows is required in future work.
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.