Search

Background: This systematic review of intervention trials and observational studies assessed the effect of delaying the first bath for at least 24 hours after birth, compared to conducting it within the first 24 hours, in term healthy newborns., Methods: We searched MEDLINE via PubMed, Cochrane CENTRAL, Embase, CINAHL (updated till November 2021), and clinical trials databases and reference lists of retrieved articles. Key outcomes were neonatal mortality, systemic infections, hypothermia, hypoglycaemia, and exclusive breastfeeding (EBF) rates. Two authors separately evaluated the risk of bias, extracted data, and synthesized effect estimates using relative risk (RR) or odds ratio (OR). The GRADE approach was used to assess the certainty of evidence., Results: We included 16 studies (two trials and 14 observational studies) involving 39 020 term or near-term healthy newborns. Delayed and early baths were defined variably in the studies, most commonly as >24 hours (six studies) and as ≤6 hours (12 studies), respectively. We performed a post-hoc analysis for studies that defined early bath as ≤6 hours. Low certainty evidence suggested that bathing the newborn 24 hours after birth might reduce the risk of infant mortality (OR = 0.46, 95% confidence interval (CI) = 0.28 to 0.77; one study, 789 participants) and neonatal hypothermia (OR = 0.50, 95% CI = 0.28-0.88; one study, 660 newborns), compared to bathing within first 24 hours. The evidence on the effect on EBF at discharge was very uncertain. Delayed bath beyond 6 hours (at or after nine, 12, or 24 hours) after birth compared to that within 6 hours might reduce the risk of hypothermia (OR = 0.47, 95% CI = 0.36-0.61; four studies, 2711 newborns) and hypoglycaemia (OR = 0.39, 95% CI = 0.23-0.66; three studies, 2775 newborns) and improve the incidence of EBF at discharge (OR = 1.12, 95% CI = 1.08-1.34; six studies, 6768 newborns); the evidence of the effect on neonatal mortality was very uncertain., Conclusion: Delayed first bath for at least 24 hours may reduce infant mortality and hypothermia. Delayed bath for at least 6 hours may prevent hypothermia and hypoglycaemia and improve EBF rates at discharge. However, most of these conclusions are limited by low certainty evidence., Registration: PROSPERO 2020 CRD42020177430., Competing Interests: Disclosure of interest: The authors completed the ICMJE Disclosure of Interest Form (available upon request from the corresponding author) and declare the following interests and relationships: Shuchita Gupta is a staff member of WHO., (Copyright © 2022 by the Journal of Global Health. All rights reserved.)

Background: This systematic review of randomized trials assessed the effect of emollient application compared to no emollient application in term or near-term healthy newborns., Methods: We searched MEDLINE via PubMed, Cochrane CENTRAL, Embase, and CINAHL (updated until November 2021), clinical trials databases, and reference lists of retrieved articles. Key outcomes were neonatal mortality, systemic infections, atopic dermatitis, skin condition, and adverse events. Two authors separately evaluated the risk of bias, extracted data, and synthesized effect estimates using relative risks (RR). The GRADE approach was used to assess the certainty of evidence., Results: We screened 19 243 records and included 16 eligible trials involving 5643 participants. Five trials recruited 3352 healthy newborns (term = 728; gestation ≥35 weeks = 2624); and 11 trials included 2291 term newborns who were 'at risk' for developing atopy but were otherwise healthy. We conducted a separate analysis for these two groups of newborns. Emollient application (creams or nut, seed, and vegetable oils) started in the neonatal period and continued for four weeks to two years across studies. Meta-analysis for term healthy newborns suggests that topical emollient application may have little to no effect on atopic dermatitis (RR = 1.29, 95% CI = 0.96-1.72; two trials, 1408 newborns; low certainty evidence). Effects on food allergy (RR = 0.84; 95% CI = 0.42-1.70; one trial, 233 newborns), allergic sensitization to food allergens (RR 1.31; 95% CI 1.03 to 1.68; one trial, 234 newborns) and inhalational allergens (RR = 0.97; 95% CI = 0.44, 2.14; 1 trial, 234 newborns), skin dryness (RR = 0.74, 95% CI = 0.55-1.00; two trials, 294 newborns), and skin problems (RR = 0.92, 95% CI = 0.81-1.05; two trials, 292 newborns) were uncertain. Meta-analysis for 'at-risk' newborns suggests that intervention probably lowers the risk of atopic dermatitis (RR = 0.74, 95% CI = 0.63-0.86; 11 studies, 1988 infants; moderate certainty evidence), but may have little or no effect on food allergy and allergic sensitization to food or inhalation allergens. The effect on skin dryness and skin rash was uncertain., Conclusions: Topical emollient application may not prevent atopic dermatitis in term healthy newborns. There is little data for other skin and allergic outcomes., Registration: Priyadarshi M, Balachander B, Rao S, Gupta S, Sankar MJ. Use of emollients in term healthy newborns: A systematic review. PROSPERO 2020 CRD42020177437., Competing Interests: Declaration of interest: The authors completed the ICMJE Unified Competing Interest Form (available upon request from the corresponding author) and declare the following activities and relationships: Shuchita Gupta is a staff member of WHO., (Copyright © 2022 by the Journal of Global Health. All rights reserved.)

Background: Though recommended by numerous guidelines, adherence to supine sleep position during the first year of life is variable across the globe., Methods: This systematic review of randomized trials and observational studies assessed the effect of the supine compared to non-supine (prone or side) sleep position on healthy newborns. Key outcomes were neonatal mortality, sudden infant death syndrome (SIDS), sudden unexpected death in infancy (SUDI), acute life-threatening event (ALTE), neurodevelopment, and positional plagiocephaly. We searched MEDLINE via PubMed, Cochrane CENTRAL, EMBASE, and CINAHL (updated till November 2021). Two authors separately evaluated the risk of bias, extracted data, and synthesised effect estimates using relative risk (RR) or odds ratio (OR). The GRADE approach was used to assess the certainty of evidence., Results: We included 54 studies (43 observational studies and 11 intervention trials) involving 474 672 participants. A single study meeting the inclusion criteria suggested that the supine sleep position might reduce the risk of SUDI (0-1 year; OR = 0.39, 95% confidence interval (CI) = 0.23-0.65; 384 infants), compared to non-supine position. Supine sleep position might reduce the risk of SIDS (0-1 year; OR = 0.51, 95% CI = 0.42-0.61; 26 studies, 59332 infants) and unexplained SIDS/severe ALTE (neonatal period; OR = 0.16, 95% CI = 0.03-0.82; 1 study, 119 newborns), but the evidence was very uncertain. Supine sleep position probably increased the odds of being 0.5 standard deviation (SD) below mean on Gross Motor Scale at 6 months (OR = 1.67, 95% CI = 1.22-2.27; 1 study, 2097 participants), but might have little to no effect at 18 months of age (OR = 1.16, 95% CI = 0.96, 1.43; 1 study, 1919 participants). An increase in positional plagiocephaly at 2-7 months of age with supine sleep position is possible (OR = 2.77, 95% CI = 2.06-3.72; 6 studies, 1774 participants)., Conclusions: Low- to very low-certainty evidence suggests that supine sleep position may reduce the risk of SUDI (0-1 year) and SIDS (0-1 year). Limited evidence suggests that supine sleeping probably delays short-term 'gross motor' development at 6 months, but the effect on long-term neurodevelopment at 18 months may be negligible., Competing Interests: Competing interests: The authors completed the ICMJE Declaration of Interest Form (available upon request from the corresponding author) and declare no conflicts of interest., (Copyright © 2022 by the Journal of Global Health. All rights reserved.)