Co‐bedding vs separate care: Apnea, bradycardia, or desaturation Number of twins with episodes
Co‐bedding showed no clear difference in apnea, bradycardia, or desaturation Number of twins with episodes compared with separate care (low certainty).
What each review found
Current versions only| Finding | Effect | Studies | GRADE certainty |
|---|---|---|---|
Co‐bedding vs separate care Apnea, bradycardia, or desaturation Number of twins with episodes · stable preterm twins with growth and neurodevelopment promoted Co‐bedding showed no clear difference in apnea, bradycardia, or desaturation Number of twins with episodes compared with separate care (low certainty). Co‐bedding in neonatal nursery for promoting growth and neurodevelopment in stable preterm twins (2016) · Cochrane Headline outcomes only | RR 0.85 [0.18, 4.05] | 1 study · 124 participants | Low |
Co‐bedding vs separate care Apnoea, bradycardia or desaturation Number of twins with the episodes · patients with promoting growth and neurodevelopment in stable preterm twins Co‐bedding showed no clear difference in apnoea, bradycardia or desaturation Number of twins with the episodes compared with separate care (low certainty). Co‐bedding in neonatal nursery for promoting growth and neurodevelopment in stable preterm twins (2012) · Cochrane Headline outcomes onlyearlier version CD008313.PUB2, superseded | RR 0.85 [0.18, 4.05] | 1 study · 124 participants | Low |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.