Facilitated tucking / four‐handed care / gentle human touch vs usual care: SDB during endotracheal suctioning
Facilitated tucking / four‐handed care / gentle human touch showed no clear difference in SDB during endotracheal suctioning compared with standard care (low certainty).
What each review found
Current versions only| Finding | Effect | Studies | GRADE certainty |
|---|---|---|---|
Facilitated tucking / four‐handed care / gentle human touch vs standard care SDB during endotracheal suctioning · neonates with mechanical ventilation Facilitated tucking / four‐handed care / gentle human touch showed no clear difference in SDB during endotracheal suctioning compared with standard care (low certainty). Non‐pharmacological interventions for the prevention of pain during endotracheal suctioning in ventilated… (2024) · Cochrane Headline outcomes only | no estimate extracted | 1 study · 20 participants | Low |
Findings are shown side by side, never pooled across reviews.
The reviews
| Review | Searched up to | Included studies | AMSTAR 2 |
|---|---|---|---|
| Non‐pharmacological interventions for the prevention of pain during endotracheal suctioning in ventilated neonates 2024 · 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.