Observational studyEuropean journal of pediatrics2026
Comparison of diaphragmatic thickness fraction between prone and supine positioning in preterm and sick term neonates: a prospective study.
Observational study in European journal of pediatrics, 2026. 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
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Prone positioning provides advantages for respiration and is routinely performed in preterm and sick term infants admitted to neonatal intensive care units (NICUs). This study aimed to evaluate the effect of the prone position on the diaphragm in neonates compared with that of the supine position using diaphragmatic ultrasound (DU). This was a prospective, observational, single-centre study. We enrolled preterm and sick term infants admitted to the NICU between August 2025 and March 2026. We conducted DU from the right zone of apposition (8-9th intercostal spaces, midaxillary line), measured the diaphragm thickness, and calculated the diaphragmatic thickness fraction (DTF). DU was performed in three phases: prone (P1), supine (S), and prone again (P2). Measurements were obtained after confirming that the infant's posture and respiratory pattern had stabilised following each position change. We enrolled 11 neonates with a median gestational age of 36 (interquartile range [IQR], 34-37) weeks and median birth weight of 2,296 (IQR, 1,936-2,475) g. On day 4 (IQR, 3-9), the DTF (%) was P1: 23.5 (16.9-26.1), S: 38.0 (29.9-48.0), and P2: 22.3 (18.0-26.2), differing significantly among positions (Friedman test, p < 0.001). Post-hoc analysis with Bonferroni correction showed that P1 vs. S and S vs. P2 differed significantly at p < 0.01, but not P1 vs. P2.
conclusionCompared with the supine position, prone position reduces DTF and prevents excessive diaphragmatic contraction in neonates admitted to the NICU. DU has the potential to serve as a non-invasive bedside tool for assessing respiratory effort. WHAT IS KNOWN: • Prone position enhances thoracoabdominal synchrony, increases rib cage motion, improves diaphragmatic efficiency, and optimises ventilation-perfusion mismatch, stabilizing percutaneous oxygen saturation and maintaining effective ventilation. • Diaphragmatic ultrasound is a valuable tool for real-time bedside assessment of diaphragmatic function in the ICU, and diaphragmatic thickening fraction (DTF) reflects respiratory effort. WHAT IS NEW: • Compared with the supine position, prone position reduces DTF and prevents excessive diaphragmatic contraction in preterm and sick term infants admitted to the NICU.
Indexed as
Identifiers
42749845What 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.