Evidence Hub

Effectiveness of combined versus single circadian interventions in neonatal and pediatric intensive care units: a systematic review with meta-analysis

Corrotea-Maltez CC, Fernández-Flores CV, Gutiérrez-Neira CL, Nirrian-Pérez AJ, Mansilla-Muñoz J, Bustos-González L

Frontiers in neurology, 2026

2,548 participants

Abstract

Introduction: Admission to neonatal or pediatric intensive care units exposes vulnerable patients to confounding environmental cues, disrupting circadian rhythms and potentially compromising physiological stability. While various circadian interventions exist, ranging from simple light cycling to complex multicomponent bundles, it remains unclear whether complex bundles offer superior clinical benefits over single-modality interventions. This systematic review evaluated the efficacy of circadian interventions on physiological parameters and sleep primarily in critically ill neonates and children, specifically comparing single versus combined strategies.

Methods: A systematic review and meta-analysis were conducted following PRISMA 2020 guidelines. We searched five major electronic databases: PubMed, ScienceDirect, CINAHL, WoS, Scopus and LILACS. Additionally, the Epistemonikos and SciELO databases were screened to identify relevant studies published in languages other than English. The search covered from inception to 2025 and was conducted during October 2025. Risk of bias was assessed using the Cochrane RoB 2 tool and ROBINS-I, while the certainty of evidence was evaluated using the GRADE approach. Data were synthesized using random-effects meta-analysis for physiological outcomes and SWiM guidelines for studies with non-parametric or incompatible data.

Results: Forty-one studies (N = 2,548) met the inclusion criteria. Meta-analysis of 16 studies demonstrated that…

How strong is the evidence?

Evidence Hub reads this as a meta-analysis, done in people. Its evidence level is 1 of 5 (Highest · pooled evidence). Pooled evidence from several studies sits at the top of the evidence pyramid. Reported size: 2,548 participants or records.

How the five levels of evidence work. The level is assigned automatically from the abstract and can be wrong, so check the paper.

Read the paper

Related studies

Go deeper in Evidence Hub

Evidence Hub adds a study data sheet (design, sample size, evidence level, key numbers), an AI summary and a chat grounded in the paper's text.

Open this study Sign up free