Observational studyEuropean journal of pediatrics2025
Effect of earmuff use on physiological and behavioral responses in preterm neonates: a non-randomized, controlled, before-after, quality improvement, observational prospective cohort study.
Observational study in European journal of pediatrics, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled 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.
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, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Effectiveness of combined versus single circadian interventions in neonatal and pediatric intensive care units: a systematic review with meta-analysis.Frontiers in neurologyPooled it
- Evaluation of the Clinical Efficacy of a Novel Palmitoylethanolamide-Medical sciences (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025Trial
- Real-World Before-After Study ofNutrients · 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
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Preterm neonates have immature body organs and even have stronger sensitivity towards environmental stress as compared with normal neonates. The NICU is a stress-causing environment because of noise produced from various sources like medical devices, monitor alarms, staff conversation, and the sound of cries from different neonates. The American Academy of Paediatrics recommends sound level should be less than 45 dB in NICU. A non-randomized, controlled, before-after, quality improvement, observational prospective cohort study was conducted on 100 preterm neonates. The samples were divided into two groups of 50 each: control and experimental. Physiological parameters were recorded, and the ABSS tool was used to assess behavioral responses. The control group received routine care, while the experimental group was provided with earmuffs. The study revealed significant improvements in physiological parameters and behavioral responses in preterm neonates using earmuffs. Experimental group neonates showed better thermal stability, reduced stress, improved respiratory and cardiovascular stability, and enhanced oxygenation (p < 0.001). Behavioral improvements included increased sleep duration and reduced restlessness, with statistically significant differences observed in all parameters compared to the control group.
conclusionWe conclude that the application of Earmuff is a fruitful method for preterm neonates to improve and stabilize the physiological parameters and behavioral response. WHAT IS KNOWN: • Excessive noise in NICUs causes stress and physiological instability in preterm neonates. • Noise reduction strategies, including ear protectors, help stabilize vital signs and improve neonatal outcomes. WHAT IS NEW: • This study confirms the effectiveness of earmuffs in improving physiological and behavioral responses in preterm neonates. • It demonstrates the feasibility of earmuff use in routine neonatal care within the study region.
Indexed as
Identifiers
40024939What 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.