Chang 2002.

Methods	DESIGN: randomised cross‐over controlled trial Method of randomisation: randomisation in blocks by a third person to ensure balanced combinations of positions; finally by an identification number in a sealed envelope Infant’s position: random assignment to the order of supine and prone positions Blinding to intervention: no Complete follow‐up: 10 participants (4 in prone, 6 in supine) did not complete the 2‐hour protocol in the same position because of the need for interventions (airway suctioning, etc), then equal duration of a selected similarly distributed intervention was used for analysis Blinding to outcome measurement: no
Participants	SETTING: neonatal intensive care unit, 2 tertiary care centres in Tainan, Taiwan DATE OF SAMPLE COLLECTION: not stated PARTICIPANTS Sample size analysed: 28 preterm infants on IMV owing to RDS in 20 cases, the remaining 8 for an unspecified cause; in relatively stable condition (no need for frequent change in ventilator settings) Gestational age at birth (weeks) (range, mean ± SD): 25 to 36; 29.5 ± 3.5 Postnatal age (hours) (range, mean ± SD): 5 to 12; 38 ± 31 Birth weight (grams) (range, mean ± SD): 687 to 2650; 1378 ± 522 Study weight (grams) (range, mean ± SD): 656 to 2550; 1335 ± 514 Associated conditions: none stated Exclusions: known congenital defects, newborns treated with sedatives
Interventions	INTERVENTIONS: prone vs supine CO‐INTERVENTIONS (similar across comparisons): surfactant in 18 newborns
Outcomes	Outcomes of interest in this review oxy‐haemoglobin saturation measured by a pulse oximeter (SpO2) as continuous variable Number of desaturation episodes and their duration Outcomes not assessed in this review: change in motor activity by time and position; ventilator parameters: FiO2 global (mean ± SD, range), PIP, PEEP, mean airway pressure, ventilatory index during study, respiratory rate
User defined 1
Notes
Risk of bias
Bias	Authors' judgement	Support for judgement
Random sequence generation (selection bias)	Low risk	Method of randomisation: sealed envelopes
Allocation concealment (selection bias)	Low risk
Blinding of outcome assessment (detection bias) All outcomes	High risk
Incomplete outcome data (attrition bias) All outcomes	High risk	No complete follow‐up for reason explained, no ITT
Selective reporting (reporting bias)	Unclear risk	No prespecified primary outcomes, so unclear
Other bias	Low risk