Co‐bedding vs separate care: Infections ‐ Suspected or proven infections (any) Clinical and microbiological methods
It is very uncertain whether co‐bedding changes infections ‐ suspected or proven infections (any) Clinical and… compared with separate care (very low certainty).
What each review found
Include earlier review versions| Finding | Effect | Studies | GRADE certainty |
|---|---|---|---|
Co‐bedding vs separate care Infections ‐ suspected or proven infections (any) Clinical and microbiological methods · stable preterm twins with growth and neurodevelopment promoted It is very uncertain whether co‐bedding changes infections ‐ suspected or proven infections (any) Clinical and… compared with separate care (very low certainty). Co‐bedding in neonatal nursery for promoting growth and neurodevelopment in stable preterm twins (2016) · Cochrane Headline outcomes only | RR 0.84 [0.3, 2.31] | 3 studies · 65 participants | Very low |
Findings are shown side by side, never pooled across reviews.
The reviews
| Review | Searched up to | Included studies | AMSTAR 2 |
|---|---|---|---|
| Co‐bedding in neonatal nursery for promoting growth and neurodevelopment in stable preterm twins 2016 · Cochrane Headline outcomes only | Not reported | list not extracted yet | Not assessed |
Studies behind the findings
None of these reviews ties its included studies to this outcome in the data here. Cochrane reviews and reviews with headline outcomes only do not list their studies yet.
How reviews are matched to this question
Reviews word the same question differently. Four decision models (TypeSafe's Jev, Liquid AI's d1-ultra, SubQ Snap and Baseten's Elephant) judged each wording of the population, intervention, comparator and outcome against the others; two wordings count as the same when at least three of them agree and none clearly disagrees, and findings count as this question only when all four elements match. Timing, setting and subgroup never split a question: they are shown on each finding.