Ibuprofen for acute postoperative pain in children.

BACKGROUND: Children often require pain management following surgery to avoid suffering. Effective pain management has consequences for healing time and quality of life. Ibuprofen, a frequently used non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drug (NSAID) administered to children, is used to treat pain and inflammation in the postoperative period. OBJECTIVES: 1) To assess the efficacy and safety of ibuprofen (any dose) for acute postoperative pain management in children compared with placebo or other active comparators. 2) To compare ibuprofen administered at different doses, routes (e.g. oral, intravenous, etc.), or strategies (e.g. as needed versus as scheduled). SEARCH METHODS: We used standard Cochrane search methods. We searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, CINAHL and trials registries in August 2023. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) in children aged 17 years and younger, treated for acute postoperative or postprocedural pain, that compared ibuprofen to placebo or any active comparator. We included RCTs that compared different administration routes, doses of ibuprofen and schedules. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: We adhered to standard Cochrane methods for data collection and analysis. Our primary outcomes were pain relief reported by the child, pain intensity reported by the child, adverse events, and serious adverse events. We present results using risk ratios (RR) and standardised mean differences (SMD), with the associated confidence intervals (CI). We used GRADE to assess the certainty of the evidence. MAIN RESULTS: We included 43 RCTs that enroled 4265 children (3935 children included in this review). We rated the overall risk of bias at the study level as high or unclear for 37 studies that had one or several unclear or high risk of bias judgements across the domains. We judged six studies as having a low risk of bias across all domains. Ibuprofen versus placebo (35 RCTs) No studies reported pain relief reported by the child or a third party, or serious adverse events. Ibuprofen probably reduces child-reported pain intensity less than two hours postintervention compared to placebo (SMD -1.12, 95% CI -1.39 to -0.86; 3 studies, 259 children; moderate-certainty evidence). Ibuprofen may reduce child-reported pain intensity, two hours to less than 24 hours postintervention (SMD -1.01, 95% CI -1.24 to -0.78; 5 studies, 345 children; low-certainty evidence). Ibuprofen may result in little to no difference in adverse events compared to placebo (RR 0.79, 95% CI 0.51 to 1.23; 5 studies, 384 children; low-certainty evidence). Ibuprofen versus paracetamol (21 RCTs) No studies reported pain relief reported by the child or a third party, or serious adverse events. Ibuprofen likely reduces child-reported pain intensity less than two hours postintervention compared to paracetamol (SMD -0.42, 95% CI -0.82 to -0.02; 2 studies, 100 children; moderate-certainty evidence). Ibuprofen may slightly reduce child-reported pain intensity two hours to 24 hours postintervention (SMD -0.21, 95% CI -0.40 to -0.02; 6 studies, 422 children; low-certainty evidence). Ibuprofen may result in little to no difference in adverse events (0 events in each group; 1 study, 44 children; low-certainty evidence). Ibuprofen versus morphine (1 RCT) No studies reported pain relief or pain intensity reported by the child or a third party, or serious adverse events. Ibuprofen likely results in a reduction in adverse events compared to morphine (RR 0.58, 95% CI 0.40 to 0.83; risk difference (RD) -0.25, 95% CI -0.40 to -0.09; number needed to treat for an additional beneficial outcome (NNTB) 4; 1 study, 154 children; moderate-certainty evidence). Ibuprofen versus ketorolac (1 RCT) No studies reported pain relief or pain intensity reported by the child, or serious adverse events. Ibuprofen may result in a reduction in adverse events compared to ketorolac (RR 0.51, 95% CI 0.27 to 0.96; RD -0.29, 95% CI -0.53 to -0.04; NNTB 4; 1 study, 59 children; low-certainty evidence). AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Despite identifying 43 RCTs, we remain uncertain about the effect of ibuprofen compared to placebo or active comparators for some critical outcomes and in the comparisons between different doses, schedules and routes for ibuprofen administration. This is largely due to poor reporting on important outcomes such as serious adverse events, and poor study conduct or reporting that reduced our confidence in the results, along with small underpowered studies. Compared to placebo, ibuprofen likely results in pain reduction less than two hours postintervention, however, the efficacy might be lower at two hours to 24 hours. Compared to paracetamol, ibuprofen likely results in pain reduction up to 24 hours postintervention. We could not explore if there was a different effect in different kinds of surgeries or procedures. Ibuprofen likely results in a reduction in adverse events compared to morphine, and in little to no difference in bleeding when compared to paracetamol. We remain mostly uncertain about the safety of ibuprofen compared to other drugs.

Positioning for lumbar puncture in newborn infants.

BACKGROUND: Lumbar puncture is a common invasive procedure performed in newborns for diagnostic and therapeutic purposes. Approximately one in two lumbar punctures fail, resulting in both short- and long-term negative consequences for the clinical management of patients. The most common positions used to perform lumbar puncture are the lateral decubitus and sitting position, and each can impact the success rate and safety of the procedure. However, it is uncertain which position best improves patient outcomes. OBJECTIVES: To assess the benefits and harms of the lateral decubitus, sitting, and prone positions for lumbar puncture in newborn infants. SEARCH METHODS: We used standard, extensive Cochrane search methods. The latest search date was 24 January 2023. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and quasi-RCTs involving newborn infants of postmenstrual age up to 46 weeks and 0 days, undergoing lumbar puncture for any indication, comparing different positions (i.e. lateral decubitus, sitting, and prone position) during the procedure. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: We used standard Cochrane methods. We used the fixed-effect model with risk ratio (RR) and risk difference (RD) for dichotomous data and mean difference (MD) and standardized mean difference (SMD) for continuous data, with their 95% confidence intervals (CI). Our primary outcomes were successful lumbar puncture procedure at the first attempt; total number of lumbar puncture attempts; and episodes of bradycardia. We used GRADE to assess the certainty of evidence for each outcome. MAIN RESULTS: We included five studies with 1476 participants. Compared to sitting position: lateral decubitus position probably results in little to no difference in successful lumbar puncture procedure at the first attempt (RR 0.99, 95% CI 0.88 to 1.12; RD 0.00, 95% CI -0.06 to 0.05; I2 = 47% and 46% for RR and RD, respectively; 2 studies, 1249 infants, low-certainty evidence). None of the studies reported the total number of lumbar puncture attempts as specified in this review. Lateral decubitus position likely increases episodes of bradycardia (RR 1.72, 95% CI 1.08 to 2.76; RD 0.03, 95% CI 0.00 to 0.05; number needed to treat for an additional harmful outcome (NNTH) = 33; I2 = not applicable and 69% for RR and RD, respectively; 3 studies, 1279 infants, moderate-certainty evidence) and oxygen desaturation (RR 2.10, 95% CI 1.42 to 3.08; RD 0.06, 95% CI 0.03 to 0.09; NNTH = 17; I2 = not applicable and 96% for RR and RD, respectively; 2 studies, 1249 infants, moderate-certainty evidence). Lateral decubitus position results in little to no difference in time to perform the lumbar puncture compared to sitting position (I2 = not applicable; 2 studies; 1102 infants; high-certainty evidence; in one of the study median and IQR to report time to perform the lumbar puncture were 8 (5-13) and 8 (5-12) in the lateral and sitting position, respectively, I2 = not applicable; 1 study, 1082 infants; in the other study: mean difference 2.00, 95% CI -4.98 to 8.98; I2 = not applicable; 1 study, 20 infants). Lateral decubitus position may result in little to no difference in the number of episodes of apnea during the procedure (RR not estimable; RD 0.00, 95% CI -0.03 to 0.03; I2 = not applicable and 0% for RR and RD, respectively; 2 studies, 197 infants, low-certainty evidence). No studies reported apnea defined as number of infants with one or more episodes during the procedure. Compared to prone position: lateral decubitus position may reduce successful lumbar puncture procedure at first attempt (RR 0.75, 95% CI 0.63 to 0.90; RD -0.21, 95% CI -0.34 to -0.09; number needed to treat for an additional beneficial outcome = 5; I2 = not applicable; 1 study, 171 infants, low-certainty evidence). None of the studies reported the total number of lumbar puncture attempts or episodes of apnea. Pain intensity during and after the procedure was reported using a non-validated pain scale. None of the studies comparing lateral decubitus versus prone position reported the other critical outcomes of this review. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: When compared to sitting position, lateral decubitus position probably results in little to no difference in successful lumbar puncture procedure at first attempt. None of the included studies reported the total number of lumbar puncture attempts as specified in this review. Furthermore, infants in a sitting position likely experience less episodes of bradycardia and oxygen desaturation than in the lateral decubitus, and there may be little to no difference in episodes of apnea. Lateral decubitus position results in little to no difference in time to perform the lumbar puncture compared to sitting position. Pain intensity during and after the procedure was reported using a pain scale that was not included in our prespecified tools for pain assessment due to its high risk of bias. Most study participants were term newborns, thereby limiting the applicability of these results to preterm babies. When compared to prone position, lateral decubitus position may reduce successful lumbar puncture procedure at first attempt. Only one study reported on this comparison and did not evaluate adverse effects. Further research exploring harms and benefits and the effect on patients' pain experience of different positions during lumbar puncture using validated pain scoring tool may increase the level of confidence in our conclusions.

Positioning for lumbar puncture in newborn infants.

BACKGROUND: Lumbar puncture is a common invasive procedure performed in newborns for diagnostic and therapeutic purposes. Approximately one in two lumbar punctures fail, resulting in both short- and long-term negative consequences for the clinical management of patients. The most common positions used to perform lumbar puncture are the lateral decubitus and sitting position, and each can impact the success rate and safety of the procedure. However, it is uncertain which position best improves patient outcomes. OBJECTIVES: To assess the benefits and harms of the lateral decubitus, sitting, and prone positions for lumbar puncture in newborn infants. SEARCH METHODS: We used standard, extensive Cochrane search methods. The latest search date was 24 January 2023. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and quasi-RCTs involving newborn infants of postmenstrual age up to 46 weeks and 0 days, undergoing lumbar puncture for any indication, comparing different positions (i.e. lateral decubitus, sitting, and prone position) during the procedure. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: We used standard Cochrane methods. We used the fixed-effect model with risk ratio (RR) and risk difference (RD) for dichotomous data and mean difference (MD) and standardized mean difference (SMD) for continuous data, with their 95% confidence intervals (CI). Our primary outcomes were successful lumbar puncture procedure at the first attempt; total number of lumbar puncture attempts; and episodes of bradycardia. We used GRADE to assess the certainty of evidence for each outcome. MAIN RESULTS: We included five studies with 1476 participants. Compared to sitting position: lateral decubitus position may result in little to no difference in successful lumbar puncture procedure at the first attempt (RR 0.93, 95% CI 0.85 to 1.02; RD -0.04, 95% CI -0.09 to 0.01; I2 = 70% and 72% for RR and RD, respectively; 2 studies, 1249 infants, low-certainty evidence). None of the studies reported the total number of lumbar puncture attempts. Lateral decubitus position likely increases episodes of bradycardia (RR 1.72, 95% CI 1.08 to 2.76; RD 0.03, 95% CI 0.00 to 0.05; number needed to treat for an additional harmful outcome (NNTH) = 33; I2 = not applicable and 69% for RR and RD, respectively; 3 studies, 1279 infants, moderate-certainty evidence) and oxygen desaturation (RR 2.10, 95% CI 1.42 to 3.08; RD 0.06, 95% CI 0.03 to 0.09; NNTH = 17; I2 = not applicable and 96% for RR and RD, respectively; 2 studies, 1249 infants, moderate-certainty evidence). The evidence is very uncertain regarding the effect of lateral decubitus position on time to perform the lumbar puncture (MD 2.00, 95% CI -4.98 to 8.98; I2 = not applicable; 1 study, 20 infants, very low-certainty evidence). Lateral decubitus position may result in little to no difference in the number of episodes of apnea during the procedure (RR not estimable; RD 0.00, 95% CI -0.03 to 0.03; I2 = not applicable and 0% for RR and RD, respectively; 2 studies, 197 infants, low-certainty evidence). No studies reported apnea defined as number of infants with one or more episodes during the procedure. Compared to prone position: lateral decubitus position may reduce successful lumbar puncture procedure at first attempt (RR 0.75, 95% CI 0.63 to 0.90; RD -0.21, 95% CI -0.34 to -0.09; number needed to treat for an additional beneficial outcome = 5; I2 = not applicable; 1 study, 171 infants, low-certainty evidence). None of the studies reported the total number of lumbar puncture attempts or episodes of apnea. Pain intensity during and after the procedure was reported using a non-validated pain scale. None of the studies comparing lateral decubitus versus prone position reported the other critical outcomes of this review. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: When compared to sitting position, lateral decubitus position may result in little to no difference in successful lumbar puncture procedure at first attempt. None of the included studies reported the total number of lumbar puncture attempts. Furthermore, infants in a lateral decubitus position likely experience more episodes of bradycardia and oxygen desaturation, and there may be little to no difference in episodes of apnea. The evidence is very uncertain regarding time to perform lumbar puncture. Pain intensity during and after the procedure was reported using a pain scale that was not included in our prespecified tools for pain assessment due to its high risk of bias. Most study participants were term newborns, thereby limiting the applicability of these results to preterm babies. When compared to prone position, lateral decubitus position may reduce successful lumbar puncture procedure at first attempt. Only one study reported on this comparison and did not evaluate adverse effects. Further research exploring harms and benefits and the effect on patients' pain experience of different positions during lumbar puncture using validated pain scoring tool may increase the level of confidence in our conclusions.

Doxapram for the prevention and treatment of apnea in preterm infants.

BACKGROUND: Apnea of prematurity is a common problem in preterm infants that may have significant consequences on their development. Methylxanthines (aminophylline, theophylline, and caffeine) are effective in the treatment of apnea of prematurity. Doxapram is used as a respiratory stimulant in cases refractory to the methylxanthine treatment. OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the benefits and harms of doxapram administration on the incidence of apnea and other short-term and longer-term clinical outcomes in preterm infants. SEARCH METHODS: We used standard, extensive Cochrane search methods. The latest search date was March 2023. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included randomized controlled trials (RCTs) assessing the role of doxapram in prevention and treatment of apnea of prematurity and prevention of reintubation in preterm infants (less than 37 weeks' gestation). We included studies comparing doxapram with either placebo or methylxanthines as a control group, or when doxapram was used as an adjunct to methylxanthines and compared to methylxanthines alone as a control group. We included studies of doxapram at any dose and route. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: We used standard Cochrane methods. Our primary outcomes were clinical apnea, need for positive pressure ventilation after initiation of treatment, failed apnea reduction after two to seven days, and failed extubation (defined as unable to wean from invasive intermittent positive pressure ventilation [IPPV] and extubate or reintubation for IPPV within one week). We used GRADE to assess the certainty of evidence for each outcome. MAIN RESULTS: We included eight RCTs enrolling 248 infants. Seven studies (214 participants) provided data for meta-analysis. Five studied doxapram for treatment of apnea in preterm infants. Three studied doxapram to prevent reintubation in preterm infants. None studied doxapram in preventing apnea in preterm infants. All studies administered doxapram intravenously as continuous infusions. Two studies used doxapram as an adjunct to aminophylline compared to aminophylline alone and one study as an adjunct to caffeine compared to caffeine alone. When used to treat apnea, compared to no treatment, doxapram may result in a slight reduction in failed apnea reduction (risk ratio [RR] 0.45, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.20 to 1.05; 1 study, 21 participants; low-certainty evidence). The evidence is very uncertain about the effect of doxapram on need for positive pressure ventilation after initiation of treatment (RR 0.31, 95% CI 0.01 to 6.74; 1 study, 21 participants; very low-certainty evidence). Doxapram may result in little to no difference in side effects causing cessation of therapy (0 events in both groups; risk difference [RD] 0.00, 95% CI -0.17 to 0.17; 1 study, 21 participants; low-certainty evidence). Compared to alternative treatment, the evidence is very uncertain about the effect of doxapram on failed apnea reduction (RR 1.35, 95% CI 0.53 to 3.45; 4 studies, 84 participants; very low-certainty evidence). The evidence is very uncertain about the effect of doxapram on need for positive pressure ventilation after initiation of treatment (RR 2.40, 95% CI 0.11 to 51.32; 2 studies, 37 participants; very-low certainty evidence; note 1 study recorded 0 events in both groups. Thus, the RR and CIs were calculated from 1 study rather than 2). Doxapram may result in little to no difference in side effects causing cessation of therapy (0 events in all groups; RD 0.00, 95% CI -0.15 to 0.15; 37 participants; 2 studies; low-certainty evidence). As adjunct therapy to methylxanthine, the evidence is very uncertain about the effect of doxapram on failed apnea reduction after two to seven days (RR 0.08, 95% CI 0.01 to 1.17; 1 study, 10 participants; very low-certainty evidence). No studies reported on clinical apnea, chronic lung disease at 36 weeks' postmenstrual age (PMA), death at any time during initial hospitalization, long-term neurodevelopmental outcomes in the three comparisons, and need for positive pressure ventilation and side effects when used as adjunct therapy to methylxanthine. In studies to prevent reintubation, when compared to alternative treatment, the evidence is very uncertain about the effect of doxapram on failed extubation (RR 0.43, 95% CI 0.10 to 1.83; 1 study, 25 participants; very low-certainty evidence). As adjunct therapy to methylxanthine, doxapram may result in a slight reduction in 'clinical apnea' after initiation of treatment (RR 0.36, 95% CI 0.13 to 0.98; 1 study, 56 participants; low-certainty evidence). Doxapram may result in little to no difference in failed extubation (RR 0.92, 95% CI 0.52 to 1.62; 1 study, 56 participants; low-certainty evidence). The evidence is very uncertain about the effect of doxapram on side effects causing cessation of therapy (RR 6.42, 95% CI 0.80 to 51.26; 2 studies, 85 participants; very low-certainty evidence). No studies reported need for positive pressure ventilation, chronic lung disease at 36 weeks' PMA, long-term neurodevelopmental outcomes in the three comparisons; failed extubation when compared to no treatment; and clinical apnea, death at any time during initial hospitalization, and side effects when compared to no treatment or alternative treatment. We identified two ongoing studies, one conducted in Germany and one in multiple centers in the Netherlands and Belgium. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: In treating apnea of prematurity, doxapram may slightly reduce failure in apnea reduction when compared to no treatment and there may be little to no difference in side effects against both no treatment and alternative treatment. The evidence is very uncertain about the need for positive pressure ventilation when compared to no treatment or alternative treatment and about failed apnea reduction when used as alternative or adjunct therapy to methylxanthine. For use to prevent reintubation, doxapram may reduce apnea episodes when administered in adjunct to methylxanthine, but with little to no difference in failed extubation. The evidence is very uncertain about doxapram's effect on death when used as adjunct therapy to methylxanthine and about failed extubation when used as alternative or adjunct therapy to methylxanthine. There is a knowledge gap about the use of doxapram as a therapy to prevent apnea. More studies are needed to clarify the role of doxapram in the treatment of apnea of prematurity, addressing concerns about long-term outcomes. The ongoing studies may provide useful data.

Pharmacological interventions for the management of pain and discomfort during lumbar puncture in newborn infants.

BACKGROUND: Lumbar puncture (LP) is a common invasive procedure, most frequently performed to diagnose infection. Physicians perform LP in newborn infants with the help of an assistant using a strict aseptic technique; it is important to monitor the infant during all the steps of the procedure. Without adequate analgesia, LP can cause considerable pain and discomfort. As newborns have increased sensitivity to pain, it is crucial to adequately manage the procedural pain of LP in this population. OBJECTIVES: To assess the benefits and harms, including pain, discomfort, and success rate, of any pharmacological intervention during lumbar puncture in newborn infants, compared to placebo, no intervention, non-pharmacological interventions, or other pharmacological interventions. SEARCH METHODS: We searched CENTRAL, PubMed, Embase, and three trial registries in December 2022. We also screened the reference lists of included studies and related systematic reviews for studies not identified by the database searches. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and quasi-RCTs comparing drugs used for pain management, sedation, or both, during LP. We considered the following drugs suitable for inclusion. • Topical anesthetics (e.g. eutectic mixture of local anesthetics [EMLA], lidocaine) • Opioids (e.g. morphine, fentanyl) • Alpha-2 agonists (e.g. clonidine, dexmedetomidine) • N-Methyl-D-aspartate (NMDA) receptor antagonists (e.g. ketamine) • Other analgesics (e.g. paracetamol) • Sedatives (e.g. benzodiazepines such as midazolam) DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: We used standard Cochrane methods. We used the fixed-effect model with risk ratio (RR) for dichotomous data and mean difference (MD) or standardized mean difference (SMD) for continuous data, with their 95% confidence intervals (CIs). Our main outcomes were successful LP on first attempt, total number of LP attempts, episodes of bradycardia, pain assessed with validated scales, episodes of desaturation, number of episodes of apnea, and number of infants with one or more episodes of apnea. We used the GRADE approach to evaluate the certainty of the evidence. MAIN RESULTS: We included three studies (two RCTs and one quasi-RCT) that enrolled 206 newborns. One study included only term infants. All studies assessed topical treatment versus placebo or no intervention. The topical anesthetics were lidocaine 4%, lidocaine 1%, and EMLA. We identified no completed studies on opioids, non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs, alpha-2 agonists, NMDA receptor antagonists, other analgesics, sedatives, or head-to-head comparisons (drug A versus drug B). Based on very low-certainty evidence from one quasi-RCT of 100 LPs in 76 infants, we are unsure if topical anesthetics (lidocaine), compared to no anesthesia, has an effect on the following outcomes. • Successful LP on first attempt (first-attempts success in 48% of LPs in the lidocaine group and 42% of LPs in the control group) • Number of attempts per LP (mean 1.9 attempts, [standard error of the mean 0.2] in the lidocaine group, and mean 2.1 attempts [standard error of the mean 2.1] in the control group) • Episodes of bradycardia (0% of LPs in the lidocaine group and 4% of LPs in the control group) • Episodes of desaturation (0% of LPs in the lidocaine group and 8% of LPs in the control group) • Occurrence of apnea (RR 3.24, 95% CI 0.14 to 77.79; risk difference [RD] 0.02, 95% CI -0.03 to 0.08). Topical anesthetics compared to placebo may reduce pain assessed with the Neonatal Facial Coding System (NFCS) score (SMD -1.00 standard deviation (SD), 95% CI -1.47 to -0.53; I² = 98%; 2 RCTs, 112 infants; low-certainty evidence). No studies in this comparison reported total number of episodes of apnea. We identified three ongoing studies, which will assess the effects of EMLA, lidocaine, and fentanyl. Three studies are awaiting classification. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: The evidence is very uncertain about the effect of topical anesthetics (lidocaine) compared to no anesthesia on successful lumbar puncture on first attempt, the number of attempts per lumbar puncture, episodes of bradycardia, episodes of desaturation, and occurrence of apnea. Compared to placebo, topical anesthetics (lidocaine or EMLA) may reduce pain assessed with the NFCS score. One ongoing study will assess the effects of systemic treatment.

Simple, miniaturized biosensors for wireless mapping of thermoregulatory responses.

Temperature is the most commonly collected vital sign in all of clinical medicine; it plays a critical role in care decisions related to topics ranging from infection to inflammation, sleep, and fertility. Most assessments of body temperature occur at isolated anatomical locations (e.g. axilla, rectum, temporal artery, or oral cavity). Even this relatively primitive mode for monitoring can be challenging with vulnerable patient populations due to physical encumbrances and artifacts associated with the sizes, weights, shapes and mechanical properties of the sensors and, for continuous monitoring, their hard-wired interfaces to data collection units. Here, we introduce a simple, miniaturized, lightweight sensor as a wireless alternative, designed to address demanding applications such as those related to the care of neonates in high ambient humidity environments with radiant heating found in incubators in intensive care units. Such devices can be deployed onto specific anatomical locations of premature infants for homeostatic assessments. The estimated core body temperature aligns, to within 0.05 °C, with clinical grade, wired sensors, consistent with regulatory medical device requirements. Time-synchronized, multi-device operation across multiple body locations supports continuous, full-body measurements of spatio-temporal variations in temperature and additional modes of determining tissue health status in the context of sepsis detection and various environmental exposures. In addition to thermal sensing, these same devices support measurements of a range of other essential vital signs derived from thermo-mechanical coupling to the skin, for applications ranging from neonatal and infant care to sleep medicine and even pulmonary medicine.