ArticleFrontiers in pediatrics2025
The budget impact of patterned frequency-modulated oral stimulation to promote non-nutritive sucking in preterm infants in the United States.
Article in Frontiers in pediatrics, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
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
Background: Premature childbirth interrupts in-utero development of essential functionalities including non-nutritive sucking (NNS), a pre-requisite for full oral feeding (FOF), often a requirement for hospital discharge. Patterned and frequency-modulated oro-somatosensory stimulation (PFOS) can help preterm infants develop NNS. This study assessed the health-economic impact of PFOS in preterm infants in the United States (US). Methods: A budget impact analysis modeled the hospital care pathway for preterm infants through a decision tree and Markov model with a 5-year time horizon. The analysis examined 100 hypothetical preterm infants with gestational age at birth (GAB) 25-30 weeks, using PFOS (NTrainer™) or standard of care (SoC). Input data were taken from published literature. Key outcomes were total costs, neonatal intensive care unit (NICU) days, infections, and rehospitalizations. Probabilistic and one-way sensitivity analyses were performed to address uncertainty. Results: For 100 preterm infants, insurance payer costs were estimated at $21,713,932 and $24,063,242 for PFOS and SoC, respectively. On average, costs with PFOS were lower by $2,349,309 (95% uncertainty interval (UI): -$342,130; $4,945,657). Sensitivity analysis showed that PFOS was cost saving in 96% of simulations. Results were driven by reduced time to FOF and discharge (-577 NICU days), while decreasing infections and rehospitalizations. From the hospital perspective, the model resulted in total costs of $8,746,157 with PFOS and $9,736,209 with SoC, a difference of $990,051 (95% UI: -$163,528; $2,093,355). Introducing PFOS was cost saving for hospitals in 96% of the simulations according to the model estimates. Conclusion: PFOS is expected to reduce the cost of care associated with developing NNS in preterm infants in the US from both a payer and hospital perspective, being especially cost-effective in older preterm infants (GAB 29-30).
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.