Scolaris Content Display Scolaris Content Display

Contenido relacionado

Ir a:

Revisiones y protocolos relacionados

Respuestas clínicas Cochrane

Colecciones especiales

Topics

Temas

Risk of bias graph: review authors' judgements about each risk of bias item presented as percentages across all included studies.
Figuras y tablas -
Figure 1

Risk of bias graph: review authors' judgements about each risk of bias item presented as percentages across all included studies.

Ir a la figura de la revisiónAbrir en una pestaña nueva

Risk of bias summary: review authors' judgements about each risk of bias item for each included study.
Figuras y tablas -
Figure 2

Risk of bias summary: review authors' judgements about each risk of bias item for each included study.

Ir a la figura de la revisiónAbrir en una pestaña nueva

Forest plot of comparison: 1 Baby Carelink versus standard care, outcome: 1.2 Length of hospital stay.
Figuras y tablas -
Figure 3

Forest plot of comparison: 1 Baby Carelink versus standard care, outcome: 1.2 Length of hospital stay.

Ir a la figura de la revisiónAbrir en una pestaña nueva

Comparison 1 Telemedicine versus standard care, Outcome 1 Length of hospital stay (days).
Figuras y tablas -
Analysis 1.1

Comparison 1 Telemedicine versus standard care, Outcome 1 Length of hospital stay (days).

Ir a la figura de la revisiónAbrir en una pestaña nueva
Summary of findings for the main comparison. Telemedicine for the support of parents of high‐risk newborn infants

Telemedicine for the support of parents of high‐risk newborn infants

Patient or population: parents of high‐risk newborn infants
Settings: NICU
Intervention: Telemedicine

Outcomes

Illustrative comparative risks* (95% CI)

Relative effect
(95% CI)

No of Participants
(studies)

Quality of the evidence
(GRADE)

Comments

Assumed risk

Corresponding risk

Control

Telemedicine

Length of hospital stay
Days
Follow‐up: 4 months

The mean length of hospital stay in the control groups was
70.6 days

The mean length of hospital stay in the intervention groups was
2.10 lower
(18.85 lower to 14.65 higher)

56
(1 study)

⊕⊝⊝⊝
very low

Quality assessment of the included study ‐ overall minor downgrade, small sample and major imprecision in the estimate of effects.

*The basis for the assumed risk (e.g., the median control group risk across studies) is provided in footnotes. The corresponding risk (and its 95% confidence interval) is based on the assumed risk in the comparison group and the relative effect of the intervention (and its 95% CI).
CI: Confidence interval

GRADE Working Group grades of evidence
High quality: Further research is very unlikely to change our confidence in the estimate of effect
Moderate quality: Further research is likely to have an important impact on our confidence in the estimate of effect and may change the estimate
Low quality: Further research is very likely to have an important impact on our confidence in the estimate of effect and is likely to change the estimate
Very low quality: We are very uncertain about the estimate

Figuras y tablas -
Summary of findings for the main comparison. Telemedicine for the support of parents of high‐risk newborn infants
Ir a la tabla de la revisión
Comparison 1. Telemedicine versus standard care

Outcome or subgroup title

No. of studies

No. of participants

Statistical method

Effect size

1 Length of hospital stay (days) Show forest plot

1

56

Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)

‐2.10 [‐18.85, 14.65]
Figuras y tablas -
Comparison 1. Telemedicine versus standard care
Ir a la tabla de la revisión