Intervention Review

You have free access to this content

Infant position in neonates receiving mechanical ventilation

  1. Albert Balaguer1,*,
  2. Joaquin Escribano2,
  3. Marta Roqué i Figuls3,
  4. May Rivas-Fernandez4

Editorial Group: Cochrane Neonatal Group

Published Online: 28 MAR 2013

Assessed as up-to-date: 15 DEC 2012

DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD003668.pub3


How to Cite

Balaguer A, Escribano J, Roqué i Figuls M, Rivas-Fernandez M. Infant position in neonates receiving mechanical ventilation. Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews 2013, Issue 3. Art. No.: CD003668. DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD003668.pub3.

Author Information

  1. 1

    Universitat Internacional de Catalunya, Department of Pediatrics. Hospital General de Catalunya., Barcelona, CATALONIA, Spain

  2. 2

    Hospital Universitari St Joan de Reus, Department of Pediatrics, Reus, Catalonia, Spain

  3. 3

    CIBER Epidemiología y Salud Pública (CIBERESP), Spain, Iberoamerican Cochrane Centre, Institute of Biomedical Research (IIB Sant Pau), Barcelona, Barcelona, Catalunya, Spain

  4. 4

    Hospital General de Cutalunya, Pediatric Service, Barcelona, Spain

*Albert Balaguer, Department of Pediatrics. Hospital General de Catalunya., Universitat Internacional de Catalunya, C/ Pedro I Pons, 1, Sant Cugat de Vallés, Barcelona, CATALONIA, 08195, Spain. abalaguer@uic.es. balaguer.albert@gmail.com.

Publication History

  1. Publication Status: New search for studies and content updated (no change to conclusions)
  2. Published Online: 28 MAR 2013

SEARCH

[Figure 1]
Figure 1. Risk of bias summary: review authors' judgements about each risk of bias item for each included study.
[Figure 2]
Figure 2. Risk of bias graph: review authors' judgements about each risk of bias item presented as percentages across all included studies.
[Analysis 1.1]
Analysis 1.1. Comparison 1 Prone versus supine, Outcome 1 pO2 (mmHg).
[Analysis 1.2]
Analysis 1.2. Comparison 1 Prone versus supine, Outcome 2 Hb O2Sat (%).
[Analysis 1.3]
Analysis 1.3. Comparison 1 Prone versus supine, Outcome 3 pCO2 (mmHg).
[Analysis 1.4]
Analysis 1.4. Comparison 1 Prone versus supine, Outcome 4 Tidal volume (mL/Kg).
[Analysis 1.5]
Analysis 1.5. Comparison 1 Prone versus supine, Outcome 5 Minute ventilation (mL/Kg/min).
[Analysis 1.6]
Analysis 1.6. Comparison 1 Prone versus supine, Outcome 6 Patients desaturating.
[Analysis 2.1]
Analysis 2.1. Comparison 2 Prone versus lateral, Outcome 1 Hb O2 Sat (%).
[Analysis 2.2]
Analysis 2.2. Comparison 2 Prone versus lateral, Outcome 2 pCO2 (mmHg).
[Analysis 3.1]
Analysis 3.1. Comparison 3 Lateral versus supine, Outcome 1 pO2 (mmHg).
[Analysis 3.2]
Analysis 3.2. Comparison 3 Lateral versus supine, Outcome 2 Hb O2 Sat (%).
[Analysis 3.3]
Analysis 3.3. Comparison 3 Lateral versus supine, Outcome 3 pCO2 (mmHg).
[Analysis 4.1]
Analysis 4.1. Comparison 4 Lateral right versus lateral left, Outcome 1 pO2 (mmHg).
[Analysis 4.2]
Analysis 4.2. Comparison 4 Lateral right versus lateral left, Outcome 2 pCO2 (mmHg).
[Analysis 4.3]
Analysis 4.3. Comparison 4 Lateral right versus lateral left, Outcome 3 Tidal volume (mL/Kg).
[Analysis 5.1]
Analysis 5.1. Comparison 5 Good lung dependant, Outcome 1 pO2 (mmHg).
[Analysis 5.2]
Analysis 5.2. Comparison 5 Good lung dependant, Outcome 2 pCO2 (mmHg).